Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION Matthew W. Brann, United States District Judge Á weightless innocence so often attends our daydreams of flight. As the Américan aviator John Gillespie Magee, Jr., 'loftily described it, pilots “dance[] the skies on laughter-silvered wings,” soaring “high in the sunlit silence.” Sadly, it wouid seem that Magee’s “high untrespassed sanctity of space” must belong to a universe far away from the dark origins and convoluted history of this case. Initiated in 2007, two.,years after David Sikkelee, Jr., died in a fiery plane crash,, the instant litigation has charted an eventful path full of intricate factual, legal, and regulatory detours. At its core is an allegation by the Plaintiff that her deceased husband’s plane lost power when screws that held the engine’s carburetor together came loose. AYCO Corporation’s Lycom-ing Engine division (hereinafter “Lycom-ing”), who filed the two pending motions, did not manufacture or install the carburetor that powered the aircraft bn that fateful day. In January 2013, the matter was reassigned to me, and in September 2014, relying upon Abdullah v. American Airlines, Inc. 181 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 1999), I held that Plaintiffs state tort claims against Lycoming were field preempted by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 45 F.Supp.3d 431 (M.D. Pa. 2014). In April 2016, during the ensuing interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit repudiated Abdullah’s breadth but instructed me to consider whether Plaintiffs state law claims might nevertheless be conflict preempted. Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680 (3d Cir. 2016), Thereafter, in November 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Lycoming’s petition for a writ of certiorari. AVCO Corp. v. Sikkelee, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 495, 196 L.Ed.2d 433 (2016). On remand, Lycoming has submitted two new motions for summary judgment. One motion challenges thé extent of Ly-coming’s liability for third-party modifications; the other sounds in recent conflict preemption jurisprudence. I conducted oral argument on May- 19, 2017 and received supplemental briefing. Lycoming has on numerous occasions vociferously challenged a prior decision in this case that exposed it to liability for subsequent modifications made by an aftermarket parts manufacturer. That holding was reached by my colleague, the Honorable John E. Jones III, to whom this matter was originally assigned. In particular, Judge Jones concluded that Lycoming, a type certifícate holder, could be held liable for modifications made by the third-party manufacturer- who overhauled the engine’s carburetor. In Judge Jones’s view, “while Lycoming’s hands were not physically present in the plant during the manufacture or in the shop during the overhaul, its invisible hands were undeniably present.” EOF No. 299 at 17. Although I have previously expressed skepticism at this holding, it is evident now, with the benefit of thorough argument, that this expanded notion of liability is unsupported by thé law and is partially responsible for sending this litigation into an academic tailspin. One might say that since I was first assigned to this matter, “I have acquired new wisdom... or, to put it more critically, have discarded old ignorance.”. Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 611, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) (Scalia,.J., concurring). Now-having gained familiarity with the applicable regulations, the FAA approvals, and the production history at issue here, I must conclude that Lycoming’s connection to the allegedly defective component was too far removed to subject it to tort liability. Indeed, the third-party manufacturer, without Lycom-ing’s knowledge or approval, acted pursuant to its own aftermarket parts agreement when it overhauled the carburetor in a manner that Lycoming could never have foreseen. Summary judgment is warranted on that ground alone. Further, by arguing that those subsequent cai’buretor modifications were attributable to Lycoming because the third-party manufacturer was bound by regulation to follow the type certificate holder’s designs, Plaintiff has chanced upon a second reason why her claims must fail: they are conflict preempted. Because it was impossible for Lycoming and the aftermarket parts manufacturer to unilaterally comply with both state tort law and federal regulations, as in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472, 133 S.Ct. 2466, 186 L.Ed.2d 607 (2013), and PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604, 131 S.Ct. 2567, 180 L.Ed.2d 580 (2011), I will grant summary judgment in Lycoming’s favor on this independent ground. I. BACKGROUND As the late Honorable Robert H. Jackson, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, once remarked, “Planes do not wander about in the sky like vagrant clouds. They move only by, federal permission, subject to federal inspection, in the hands of federally certified personnel and under an intricate system of federal commands.” Northwest Airlines v. State of Minnesota, 322 U.S. 292, 303, 64 S.Ct. 950, 88 L.Ed. 1283 (1944). Justice Jackson’s observation sprang from “the national responsibility for regulating air commerce” and reinforced the notion that the “air is too pre-cio.u^ as an open highway to permit it to be owned” by local interests. Id,. “Local exac-tions and barriers to free transit in the air would neutralize its indifference to space and its conquest of time.” Id. Nearly three-quarters of a century later, Justice Jackson’s prescient concerns about an excessively splintered airway regulatory system ring just as true. Indeed, those animating federalist principles are precisely why Congress has established an administration whose sole mission is to assure the safety of our nation’s skies. This background section examines the FAA’s intricate framework of regulations, a fraction of whose existence Justice Jackson could only imagine in 1944. It then connects those regulations to the narrative of this case. A. In 1958, Congress Creates The Federal Aviation Agency And Bestows Upon It Dominion Over The Skies. Congress passed the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to regulate aviation in a way that would “best foster its development and safety” and would ensure the “safe and efficient use of the airspace.” 85 Pub. L. No. 726, 72 Stat. 731. The Act created the position of an Administrator who would be appointed by the president to head the agency. 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(h). As part of his official role, the Administrator must prescribe, among other regulations, minimum standards for the design, construction, inspection, and overhauling of aircraft and their engines. Id. § 44701(a)(l)-(2). Concerned with a lack of coordination amongst our nation’s transportation systems, President Lyndon B. Johnson worked jointly with Congress to create the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 1967, at which time the Federal Aviation Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and brought within the DOT’s purview. See A Brief History of the FAA. Since that time, the FAA has continued to fulfill its regulatory mission, and, today, its nearly 50,000 employees make it the largest subdivision within the DOT. See FACT SHEET. Recent estimates suggest that more than 1.7 million passengers board a flight in the United States every day, and the FAA oversees more than 50 million commercial, military, and general aviation flights per year. See id. Acting on the powers vested in it by Congress through the Federal Aviation Act and corresponding; grants, the FAA has littered the books with a maze of regulations not readily traversed by most laypersons. Like other parallel regulatory regimes that have exposed state tort claims to conflict preemption defenses, Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472, 133 S.Ct. 2466, 186 L.Ed.2d 607 (2013) (FDA drug regulations); PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604, 131 S.Ct. 2567, 180 L.Ed.2d 580 (2011) (same), the FAA’s regulations are highly particularized, govern nearly every aspect of the regulated field, and are born from the twin aims of ensuring the safety of consumers and protecting the public. See, e.g., Elsworth v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 37 Cal.3d 540, 208 Cal.Rptr. 874, 691 P.2d 630, 636 (1984) (FAA regulations protect not only “those who fly in airplanes” but also anyone “affected by their flight”). The FAA’s regulations, found at Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, are divided into three volumes, sixty-eight parts, and thousands more detailed sub-parts. See Overview — Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, at 12-1. Volume I contains those FAA regulations governing definitions (Parts 1 & 3); procedure (Parts 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, & 17); and aircrafts (Parts 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 43, 45, 47 & 49). Volume II contains the regulations governing airmen (Parts 61, 63, 65, & 67); airspace (Parts 71, 73, & 77); air traffic and operation (Parts 91, 93, 95, 97, 99, 101, 103, & 105); and air carriers (Parts 119,121,125,129,133,135,136,137, & 139). Volume III covers flight schools (Parts 141, 142, 145 & 147); airports (Parts 150,151,152,155,156,157,158,161, & 169); navigational facilities (Parts 170 & 171); administrative regulations (Parts 183, 185, 187, 189, & 193); and insurance (Part 198). Id. at 12-2. In fact, the FAA typically only assigns odd numbers to its major batches of regulations in order to leave room for new regulations that will eventually fill in the even-numbered gaps. See id. at 12-3.. According to an FAA letter brief submitted to the Third Circuit in this case, the FAA has instituted a three-stage process to ensure that all new aircrafts and components comply with established design standards. See FAA Ltr. Br., ECF No. 534-1, at 4 (hereinafter “FAA Ltr. Br.”). These three steps are: (1) type certification; (2) production certification; and (3) airworthiness certification. For the purpose of resolving the pending motions, I will review the pertinent regulations with an emphasis on those comprising type certification. Then, I will discuss how a type certificate might be amended and how aftermarket manufacturers who do not possess the type certificate nevertheless may produce replacement parts by way of a “Parts Manufacturer Approval.” Finally, I will explain how those regulations apply to this dispute. B. Obtaining A Type Certificate Is An Onerous Process Requiring Numerous Submissions That Precisely Detail The Specifications Of The Proposed Aircraft, Its Engine, And Related Components. The first step in production requires a manufacturer who wishes to produce a new aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller to obtain a “type certificate.” A type certificate confirms that the aircraft or its component is properly designed and manufactured, and satisfies all applicable regulatory standards. See id. See also 49 U.S.C. § 44704(a); 14 C.F.R. § 21.21. A manufacturer must obtain a type certificate before producing a new aircraft or engine, unless a type certificate already exists for the precise design or it has a licensing agreement to produce the aircraft or engine with the type certificate holder. 14 C.F.R. § 21.6. All type certificate applications are required to be completed on a form and in a manner prescribed by the FAA. Id. § 21.15. They are submitted to the appropriate aircraft certification ^office and must be accompanied by a three-view drawing of the aircraft, available preliminary basic data, a description of the engine design features, the engine operating characteristics, and the proposed engine operating limitations. Id. § 21.15. A type certificate application must demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements, must provide the FAA the means by which such compliance has been shown, and must also supply a statement certifying as much. Id. § 21.20. An applicant may not obtain a type certificate unless the FAA Administrator expressly finds that the proposed aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance is “properly designed and manufactured, performs properly, and meets the regulations and minimum standards.” 49 U.S.C. § 44704(a). Indeed, 14 C.F.R. § 21.21 (entitled “Issue of type certificate: normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, and transport category aircraft; manned free balloons; special classes of aircraft; aircraft engines; propellers”) instructs applicants as follows': An applicant is entitled to a type certificate for an aircraft in the normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, or transport category, or for a manned free balloon, special class of aircraft, or an aircraft engine or propeller, if— (b) The applicant submits the type design, test reports, and computations necessary to show that the product to be certificated meets the applicable airworthiness, aircraft noise, fuel venting, and exhaust emission requirements of this subchapter and any special conditions prescribed by the FAA, and the FAA finds— (1) Upon examination of the type design, and after completing all tests and inspections, that the type design and the product meet the applicable noise, fuel venting, and emissions requirements of this subchapter, and.further finds that they meet the applicable airworthiness requirements gf this sub-chapter or that any airworthiness provisions not complied with, are compensated for by. factors that provide an equivalent level of safety; and (2) For an aircraft, that no feature or characteristic makes it unsafe for the category in which certification is requested. As that regulation makes clear, the FAA must receive a number of submissions, including the type design, test reports, and computations, that show that the product for which.certification is sought meets all applicable regulatory standards. This process is, often “intensive and painstaking”: a commercial aircraft manufacturer seeking a new type certificated aircraft might submit 300,000 drawings, 2,000’ engineering reports, and 200 other reports in addition to completing approximately 80 ground tests and 1,600 hours of flight tests. Sikkelee, 822 F.3d at 684-85 (citing United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines), 467 U.S. 797, 805 n. 7, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 (1984)). The “type design” portion of the type certificate application is governed by 14 C.F.R. § 21.31. Under that regulation, the type design must consist of: (1) drawings and specifications; (2) structural information on materials and dimensions; (3) a showing of continued airworthiness; (4) inspection- and preventative maintenance programs; and (5) any other information relevant to airworthiness, noise, fuel venting, and emissions determinations. In addition, the type certificate applicant must submit to the FAA a statement confirming that the manufactured aircraft-engine or propeller presented for certification in fact conforms to its submitted type design. Id. § 21.53(a). The concept of “airworthiness” as the type design regulation refers to it, is explained in greater detail at 14 C.F.R. §. 23 for aircrafts and at 14 C.F.R, § 33 for aircraft engines. For instance, § 21.23 (air-crafts) contains subparts on flight (§§ 23.21-23.255); structure (§§ 23.301-23.575); - design and . construction (§§ 23.601-23.871); powerplant (§§ 23.901-23.1203); .equipment (§§ 23.1301-23.1461); and operating limitations and information (§§ 23.1501-23.1589). As to an engine specifically, the airworthiness regulations require that its materials be established on the basis of experience or tests and conform to approved specifications that 'ensure their strength and continued durability. Id. § 33.15. A separate regulation provides that an engine’s design and construction “must minimize the development of an unsafe condition of the engine between overhaul periods.” Id. § 33.19(a). Other regulations governing engine construction in general pertain to engine mounting attachments (§ 33.23) and- engine instrument connections (§ 33.29). Fueling mechanism are regulated in part by 14 C.F.R. § 33.35(a), which requires that a reciprocating or piston engine’s fuel injection system “be designed .and constructed to supply an appropriate mixture of fuel to the cylinders throughout the complete operating range of the engine under all flight and atmospheric conditions.” One regulation in that subpart also requires that the engine be designed and constructed in such a way that avoids excessive stress or vibrations. Id. § 33.33. Another regulation also governs an engine’s lubrication system. Id. § 33.39. In addition..to the type design and its components, all type certificate applicants must permit the FAA to conduct any necessary inspections, flight tests, and ground tests necessary to show that the proposed product satisfies all applicable regulations. Id. § 21.33. These inspections, ensure, among other things, that (1) the proposed product complies with the applicable airworthiness, aircraft noise, fuel venting, and exhaust emission requirements; (2) materials and products conform to the specifications in the type design;. (3) parts of the products conform to the drawings in the type design; and (4) the manufacturing processes, construction and assembly conform to those specified in the type design. Id. § 21.33(b). Once the' applicable ground tests and compliance are completed, the applicant must conduct flight tests to determine whether there is reasonable assurance that the aircraft, its components, and its equipment are reliable and functioning properly. Id. § 21.35(b)(2). Such tests require upwards of 150 to 300 hours of flight time, depending upon whether the particular engine type was already incorporated in an earlier type certificated Aircraft." Id. § 21.35(f)(1) — (2). By regulation, these flight tests must be conducted by a certified pilot. Id. § 21.37. The applicant must also submit all reports regarding calibration of testing instruments and allow the FAA to audit the accuracy of those reports. Id. § 21.39. Importantly, every type certificate “is considered to include” the type design, the operating limitations, the. certificate data sheet, and other applicable specifications submitted thereto. Id. § 21,41. The type certificate data sheet, which § 21.41 explicitly incorporates into . the type certificate itself, has been defined in various FAA orders as “the part of the type certificate documenting the conditions and .limitations necessary to meet certification airworthiness requirements.” See FAA Order 8110.4C, Type Certification, at 68 (hereinafter “FAA Type Certification Order”). The type certificate data sheet “provid[es] a concise definition of the configuration of a type-certificated product” and “is necessary to enable any person to easily find information about a specific product.” Id. In other words, it “records the type certification data of a product (such as control surface movement limits, operating limitations, placards,, and weight and balance) that may also be available in the flight manual or maintenance manual in accordance with FAA Order 8110.4.” See FAA Order 8110.121, Type Certificate Data Sheet Notes, at 2 (hereinafter “FAA TODS Order”). Although 14 C.F.R. § 21.41 does not separate the type certificate data sheet into a main section and a notes section, the FAA has elected to do so for clarification and standardization purposes. Id. A type certificate remains effective until it is surrendered, suspended, revoked, or a termination date set by the FAA has passed. Id. § 21.51. Holders of type certificates and other related production authorizations have a continuing duty to report known- defects, failures, and malfunctions to the extent that they result in any of a number of enumerated occurrences. Id. §- 21.3. C. A Type Certificate Holder May Not Independently Change A Type Certificate’s Type Design Details Without First Obtaining FAA Approval. A type certificate holder may not implement type design changes absent the FAA first explicitly approving such modifications. Command of several of the regulations’ terms of art is required to see why this is so. The FAA has set forth two types of modifications relevant here: (1) alterations and (2) type design changes. The regulations conceive of type design changes as a specific subset of alterations that would modify the type design. Recall that the regulations make clear that the “type design” includes all pertinent drawings and specifications necessary to define the configuration and the design features of the product; information on dimensions, materials, and processes necessary to define the structural strength of the product; and the required airworthiness criteria. 14 C.F.R. § 21.31. To add an additional layer of classification, the regulations also define all alterations and type design changes as “major” or “minor.” The definition of a major alteration is not coextensive with that of a major type design. Consequently, a major alteration need not also be a major type design change. This background is important because the particular form of FAA approval necessary depends upon whether the proposed modification is a major or minor alteration and on whether it constitutes a major or minor type design change (if it constitutes a type design change at all). To be clear from the outset, the regulations and the FAA’s interpretation of its own regulations make explicit that FAA approval is required to implement all type design changes, regardless of whether they are major or minor. As the FAA has previously explained to our Court of Appeals during this litigation, “Certain ‘minor’ changes, defined by regulation, may not require an amended or supplemental type certificate, but are still subject to approval by the FAA.” FAA Ltr. Br. at 5 ■(citing 14 C.F.R. § 21.95). “[N]o matter what role a manufacturer plays in the type-certification process, the decision to approve the- type design ultimately rests with the FAA.” FAA Ltr. Br. at 15. “This is true even for ‘minor’ type design changes,, 14 C.F.R. § 21.93(a), which are approved under a method acceptable to the FAA.” Id. Thus, as I will discuss more fully herein, to the extent that Plaintiffs tort claims are premised on a modification that would have constituted a type design change, her tort claims fail on conflict preemption grounds. I note that the FAA’s interpretation of its own regulations, as provided in the cited Letter Brief, is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations’ text. See Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997). To begin with, 14 C.F.R. § 21.93(a) provides that a “minor change” has. no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics of the aircraft. All other changes are major changes. Id. The regulations further clarify that major changes in type design require submission all substantiating and descriptive data for inclusion in the type -design and compliance statement, all of which is subject to FAA approval. 14 C.F.R. § 21.97. Minor type design changes may be approved “under a method acceptable to the FAA.” 14 C.F.R. § 21.95. The. FAA. has clarified that implementation of minor type design changes still requires FAA approval. FAA Ltr. Br. at 5, 15. This is true in part because not only must the applicant choose a method acceptable to the FAA to effectuate minor type design changes, but “at a minimum,” such minor changes also must be “recorded in the descriptive data, with the FAA and the applicant determining an acceptable process for approving the data supporting the type design changes.” FAA DER Handbook at 12. The FAA’s interpretation of its own regulations thus makes clear that even though major type design changes often require more formalized methods of review, minor type design changes still must be approved before their implementation- — albeit through more informal means as appropriate. Relatedly, major and minor alterations are defined at 14 C.F.R. § 1.1. A major alteration is any alteration not listed in the aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller specifications that (1) might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or that (2) is not performed according to accepted practices or cannot be performed by elementary operations. Id. All other alterations- are minor alterations. Id. Appendix'A to 14 C.F.R. § 43 provides as follows: (a) Major Alterations— (2) Powerplant major'alterations. The follovmig alterations of a power-plant when not listed in the engine specifications issued by the FAA, are powerplant major alterations: (i) Conversion of an aircraft engine from one approved model to another,-involving any changes in com- . pression ratio, propeller reduction gear, impeller gear ratios or the substitution of major engine parts, which requires extensive rework and testing of the engine. (ii) Changes to the engine by replacing aircraft engine structural parts with parts not supplied by the original manufacturer or parts not specifically approved by the Ad- ■ ministrator. (iii) Installation of an accessory which is not approved for the engine. (iv) Removal of accessories .that are listed as required equipment on the aircraft or engine specification. (v) Installation of structural parts other than the type of parts approved for the installation. (vi) Conversions of any sort for the purpose of using fuel of a rating or grade other than that listed in the engine specifications. When a type certificate holder- makes a major alteration or delegates implementation of a major alteration to an authorized party, the alteration must be completed “in accordance with "technical data ap-provéd by the Administrator,” Id. § 379(b). The same requirement applies to certificated repair stations who perform major alterations. Id. § 145.201(c)(2).'“Ap-proved data” used to make major alterations means data approved by thé'FAA or any person to whom the FAA has delegated its authority as to the alteration. FAA Order 8300.16 CHG 1, at 13 (hereinafter “FAA Data Approval Order”). “All data used to substantiate a major repair or alteration, regardless - of the source, must be approved before being used.” Id. at 13-14. . In contrast, to perform minor alterations, the applicant or- an authorized third-party performs the alteration using data “acceptable to the FAA” and must document it in maintenance records. Id. at 1. “Acceptable data” means data acceptable to the FAA.’ Id. at 13. Although acceptable data does not “necessarily, require FAA review and acceptance prior to” use, the authorized party must be able to demonstrate that the data “meets all applicable regulatory requirements,” and the FAA may challenge that data in a subsequent enforcement action, Id. In that same Order describing the types of data necessary for major versus minor alterations, the FAA explained: The use of the term(s) major and minor are, sometimes .inappropriately applied or misunderstood. A major change ,in type design can be approved only by an ACO. as. an amended type, certificate (TC) or supplemental type certificate (STC). A major alteration requires the use of FAA-approved technical data. Minor alterations only require data that is acceptable to the FAA. During an evaluation, an anticipated major alteration may be subsequently classified as a major change in type design, and thus would require application for an amended TC or STC. Id. at 1. The following flowchart supplied by the FAA" on page 5" of its Data Approval Order assists in visualizing a manufacturer’s regulatory burden when it seeks to implement an alteration: Table 1 below, categorizes the changes and regulatory burdens outlined by the regulations and the FAA’s flowchart: To summarize, FAA. approval is required for any major or minor changes to an article’s type design, as well as for any major alteration. A major alteration is one that “might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness,” D. Designated Engineering Representatives (DERs) Pose No Issue As To Conflict Preemption Because At All Times, DERs Act Within The Scope Of Their FAA Delegation And Ensure That FAA Regulations Are Followed. Recall that minor type design changes may be approved “under a method acceptable to the FAA.” 14 C.F.R. § 21.95. One such method requires obtaining approval from an FAA designated engineering representative (DER). Plaintiff has suggested that changes implemented by way of DER approval would not be conflict preempted because some DERs may nominally be hired by private aircraft manufacturers. That argument is unavailing, however, because the FAA delegates to its DERs the power to approve modifications and otherwise act on the Administration’s own behalf. Further, DER approval would likely have been insufficient to implement the proposed changes complained of here. Section 44702(d) of the Federal Aviation Act (entitled “Delegation”), sets forth the authority for the FAA to empanel DERs to act as surrogates of the Administration, subject at all times to its regulations. That Section provides as follows: (1) Subject to regulations, supervision, and review the Administrator may prescribe, the Administrator may delegate to a qualified private person, or to an employee under the supervision of that person, a matter related to— (A) the examination, testing, and inspection necessary to issue a certificate under this chapter; and (B) issuing the certificate. The FAA exercises significant control over its DERs in the performance of their official duties. For instance, DERs are typically designated to serve one-year terms, capable of renewal for additional one-year periods at the FAA’s discretion. See Steenholdt v. FAA, 314 F.3d 633, 635 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (Sentelle, J.) (citing 14 C.F.R. § 183.15). Moreover, a DER’s designation may be rescinded should the FAA find that the DER has not properly performed his or her duties, is no longer necessary, or “for any reason the Administrator considers appropriate.” 14 C.F.R. § 183.15; 49 U.S.C. § 44702(d)(2). In fact, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that there are “no constraints” on the FAA’s power to rescind a DER’s official designation and that such a decision is not substantively reviewable under the Administrative Procedures Act. Steenholdt, 314 F.3d at 639. Any decision by a DER may be appealed to the FAA. Id. § 44702(d)(3), and the FAA may, “on the Administrator’s own initiative,” reconsider a DER decision at any time. If the FAA believes that the DER’s decision was “unreasonable or unwarranted,” it can modify or reverse it in toto. Id. A corresponding regulation, 14 C.F.R. § 183.29(a), explicitly provides that a DER may approve structural engineering information and other structural considerations only when he or she determines that the revisions comply with all applicable FAA regulations. At all times, the DER acts “within limits prescribed by and under the general supervision of the Administrator.” Id. As the FAA’s official DER Handbook explains, “Specific roles, authorized areas, and responsibilities of a DER are established by an agreement between the [FAA’s Air Craft Certification Office (ACO) ] and the DER at the initial appointment of a DER, and, may be further limited for specific FAA projects.” FAA DER Handbook at 6. Moreover, DERs can only “find compliance” on behalf of the FAA “in the delegated functions and authorized areas for which they were appointed.” Id. at 11. The FAA also “retains authority and responsibility for establishing the certification basis” in such a way that “limits the data that a DER can approve.” Id. at 12. That same Handbook characterizes the delegatory relationship between the FAA and its DERs as follows: Title 49, United States Code, Section 44704 (49 U.S.C. § 44704) empowers the Administrator to issue type certificates (TC) for aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers, and to specify regulations as applicable to the type certification function. Section 44702(d). authorizes the Administrator to delegate to a qualified private person, or to an employee under the supervision of that person, a matter related to the examination, testing, and inspection necessary to the issuance of such certificates. Delegations are limited in scope: all requirements, policy, direction, and interpretations remain with the Administrator. Id. at 6. Further, any DER “must follow the same procedures that an FAA engineer must follow when performing compliance finding functions, such as those appearing in Order 8110.4, Type Certification, Order 8110.42, Parts Manufacturer Approval Procedures, and Order 8110.54, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness Responsibilities, Requirements, and Contents.” Id. The DER Manual explains that PAA pre-authorization is required “before exercising authority on any certification project,” and in all cases, the DER “must follow FAA policy in determining compliance with pertinent regulations.” Id. at 21. According to the DER Handbook, major changes require specific DER authorization. PAA DER Handbook at 24. However, the PAA “may approve minor changes in type design under a method acceptable to the Administrator, per 14 CPR § 21.95.” Id. This method may include approval by a DER.” Id. Thus, even where a manufacture-er believes that a proposed change is a minor one, it cannot take independent action to make that change — its implementation instead depends upon' the DER’s approval and still remains' subject to the FAA’s broad oversight at several junctures.-This is consistent with the FAA’s interpretation of its own regulations. FAA Ltr. Er. ,at 5,15. Although the applicant may suggest to the DER whether it believes a type design change is major or minor, “the FAA retains final approval of that decision, and it cannot be delegated.” Id. at 12. To that end, the DER is not authorized to interpret FAA regulations. Id. Instead it “must be guided by” the FAA’s “existing policies, procedures, specifications, processes, and standards.” Id. In addition, not only must the applicant choose a method acceptable to the FAA to effectuate' minor changes, but “at a minimum,” minor changes- also must be “recorded in the descriptive data, with the FAA and the applicant determining an acceptable process for approving the data supporting the type design changes.” Id, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has described DERs as “independent contractors”, of the FAA, who although hired by the private aircraft industry to inspect private airplanes, may only approve modifications within their delegated authority by first ensuring that the changes would comply with the. regulations. Ligon v. LaHood, 614 F.3d 150, 152 (5th Cir. 2010). “Stated differently, the DER process enables the FAA to appoint qualified private individuals to perform examinations, tests, and inspections required to determine compliance with FAA airworthiness regulations,” ensuring “that private industry clients who hire the DER are in compliance with FAA regulations for airworthiness standards.” Jones v. LaHood, 667 F.Supp.2d 714, 715 (N.D. Tex. 2009), aff'd sub nom. Jones v. United States, 625 F.3d 827 (5th Cir. 2010). See also Leica Geosystems, Inc. v. L.W.S. Leasing, Inc., 872 F.Supp.2d 1191, 1195 (D. Colo. 2012) (explaining that a DER “works as a special liaison” between the FÁA and private repair stations “to ensure that the modification, is in compliance with FAA regulations”). The Supreme Court has cast the surrogacy relationship between the FAA and its DER designees in the following light: With fewer than 400 engineers, the FAA obviously cannot complete this elaborate compliance review, process alone. Accordingly, 49 U.S.C. § 1355 authorizes the Secretary to delegate certain inspection and certification responsibilities to' properly qualified private persons. By regulation, the Secretary has provided for the: appointment of private individuals to serve as designated engineering representatives to assist in the FAA certification process. 14 CFR § 183,29 (1984). These representatives are typically employees of aircraft manufacturers, who possess detailed knowledge of an aircraft’s design based upon their .day-to-day involvement in its development. The representatives act as surrogates of the FAA in examining, inspecting, and testing aircraft for purposes of certification. 14 CFR § 183.1 (1984). In determining whether, an aircraft complies with FAA regulations, they are guided by the same require.ments, instructions, and procedures as FAA employees. FAA employees may briefly review the reports and other data submitted by representatives before certificating a subject aircraft. United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines), 467 U.S. 797, 807, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 (1984) (internal citations omitted). As such, I note that a DER serves as a functional extension of. the FAA, working to make the Administration’s approval-process more efficient — not to lower the applicable regulatory standards. As the FAA has explained, the DER’s purpose is to “expedit[e] accomplishment of required demonstrations of compliance with applicable airworthiness standards” and to “reduce or eliminate delays in obtaining required certifications.” Designated Airworthiness Representatives, 48 Fed. Reg. 16176. Neither is it significant that DERs may at times be nominally employed third-party aviation entities when they perform the regulatory role that the FAA has delegated them. “The FAA has stated that ‘when performing a delegated function, designees are legally distinct from, and act independent of the organizations that employ them.’ ” Swanstrom v. Teledyne Cont’l Motors, Inc., 531 F.Supp.2d 1325, 1333 (S.D. Ala. 2008) (quoting Establishment of Organisation Designation Authorization Program, 70 Fed. Reg. 59932, 59933 (Oct. 13, 2005)). In fact, the district court in Swanstrom described DERS as being “subject to administrative regulations by the FAA” and perhaps capable of being classified as “persons acting under a federal officer” for the purposes of federal removal jurisdiction. 531 F.Supp.2d at 1332. Moreover, a failure by a DER to fulfill his obligations for the continued maintenance of FAA certification is “a failure as a DER, not as an individual airman.” Duchek v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 364 F.3d 311, 316 (D.C. Cir. 2004). See also Marcy v. FAA, 936 F.2d 583 (10th Cir. 1991) (upholding substantive reasonableness of FAA’s decision not to renew DER’s commission wh'én DER “exceeded the bounds of his authority in violation of agency regulations” 'by “continuing] to insist upon his own interpretation of the appropriate regulations”). Further, the law is clear, that courts must prioritize functional realities over cursory labels when analyzing employment or delegation relationships. In determining upon whose behalf an individual performs his workj “economic reality rather than technical concepts is to be the test.” In re Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litig., 683 F.3d 462, 467 (3d Cir. 2012) (Garth, J.). Thus, courts in the Third Circuit’s vicinage must examine “the totality of the circumstances to determine the economic realities of the relationship” between two entities. Jochim v. Jean Madeline Education Center of Cosmetology, Inc., 98 F.Supp.3d 750, 757 (E.D. Pa. 2015). These authorities thus point to, one conclusion: DER approval is not independently undertaken by a private manufacturer unconstrained by FAA regulations. Rather, it is a. type of delegated approval that will only be granted when compliance with the pertinent regulations is adequately shown, and the DER has acted within the scope of the Administration’s delegation. E. Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) Holders Who Submit Their Own Tests And Computations To The FAA Are Not Legally Bound By The Type Certificate Holder’s Design Decisions. Instead, Market Forces Incentivize Them To Produce Replacement Parts Sufficiently Close To Those Approved In The Type Certificate. In general, aircraft replacement components may not be produced except under the original type certifícate or a production agreement, such as a Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA). 14 C.F.R. §§ 21.8; 21.9(a)~(b). A type certificate may also be transferred or made available to third parties by way of a licensing agreement. 21 C.F.R. § 21.47(a). In that case, the type certificate holder must provide to the other party to the licensing agreement a formal written agreement acceptable to the FAA. Id. § 21.55. Lycoming had no licensing agreement with its co-defendants regarding the subject carburetor. Instead, the co-defendants produced that part independently according to a separate agreement that they had reached with the FAA to which Lycoming was not a party. Make no mistake about it: type certificate holders and PMA holders are not entities who sit at different stages of a unified supply chain. To the extent that earlier decisions of this Court have imputed as much, those decisions gave analysis of this relationship much too short shrift. To the contrary, type certificate holders and PMA holders are competitors, as are most original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) relative to their aftermarket counterparts. The hallmark of any such economic relationship is the trade-off between the quality of imitations and price savings. As it were, OEMs like type certificate holders were quick to disparage the quality of PMA parts when they were first authorized to sell aftermarket products. In fact, an early FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin rebuked one OEM’s attempt to analogize PMA holders to second-rate Elvis impersonators. See FAA SAIB: NE-08-40. Tellingly, the FAA wrote the following in that very same bulletin: “The FAA understands that the [type certificate] holder has no knowledge or data about the PMA and STC parts installed in the product and, therefore, can only assess the airworthiness and systems effects of their parts installed in the product.” This strict dichotomy between OEMs like type certificate holders and aftermarket part producers like PMA holders is further illustrated by the regulations. Specifically, the first regulation in the subpart on PMAs makes clear that the section governs only the procedures for obtaining a PMA and the duties of PMA holders — it does not apply to the type certification process discussed above. 14 C.F.R. § 21.301. Third-party manufacturers seeking PMA approval typically must obtain it by satisfying one of three methods: (1) identi-cality with a licensing agreement; (2) iden-ticality without a licensing agreement; or (3) tests and computations. FAA Order 8120.22A, Production Approval Process, at 4-7-4-8 (hereinafter “PMA Order”). The parties do not dispute that the PMA relevant to. the pending motions was obtained by the tests and computations method. This is a particularly compelling fact when considering the extent of Lycoming’s liability for subsequent modifications, as the tests and computations method is the type, of approval that relies least upon demonstrating an identity of structure between the type certificate holder’s article and the article for which the PMA is sought. In the context of the PMA process, “identicality” is a strict notion. It requires that the PMA applicant “show[ ] that the design of the article is identical to. the design of an article that is covered under a type certificate.” 14 C.F.R. § 21.303(4). An applicant seeking approval by way of iden-ticality must certify that the proposed design “is identical in all respects” to the already-approved design. PMA Order at 4-8. That certification must be supported by data. Id. Further, identicality with an existing PMA is insufficient to obtain approval for a subsequent PMA. Id. The previously approved design from which identi-cality is measured must have received type certification or an equivalent approval. Id. Absent such a showing, the applicant must submit test reports and computations showing that the design of the article meets the applicable airworthiness requirements. Id. When a PMA applicant selects the tests and computations route, it must submit a “data package” indicating that “all design, materials, processés, test specifications, system- compatibility, and interchangeability are supported by an appropriate test and substantiation plan for FAA review and approval.” Id. A tests and computations application must contain: (1) a compliance checklist as to the regulatory requirements; (2) test reports and computations; (3) a safety assessment; and (4)- a continued operation safety plan. See FAA Advisory Circular 21.303-4, at 5 (hereinafter “PMA Advisory Circular”). The test reports and computations must “show that an article’s design meets the applicable airworthiness requirements of its respective product.” Id. at 7. Although the scope and rigor of each test may vary, the FAA requires that they at least include: (1) a safety assessment that characterizes the nature of the article and its effect on safety; (2) computations .that show regulatory compliance or substantiate the comparative analysis; and (3) test results, that show direct regulatory compliance or verify the comparative analyses. Id. At all times, the focus is on the proposed articles “purpose, physical characteristics, interfaces with its product, and hot its failure modes impact safety.” Id. All of these tests are completed and summarized by the PMA applicant, not by the type certificate holder. Id. Indeed, the type certificate holder has no place in the PMA process. As counsel for Plaintiff, Te-jinder, Singh, Esquire, explained at oral argument, the relationship between a PMA article and a type-certificated one is primarily that of imitation motivated by economic incentives. As Mr. Singh described, “[T]he reason that [the PMA holder] designs things the way it does.is not so much that the FAA.. .created a design for it to follow. It is that it wants to produce parts for use on [the type certificate holder’s] engines. Right. That’s its economic motivation.” Tr. of May 19, 2017 Oral Arg., EOF No. 562, at 138:22-25 (hereinafter “May 2017 Tr.”). “The reason that manufactur-' ers like [the PMA holder] get in the position they’re in is because they just to sell parts for these engines,” he continued. “[T]hey follow the OEM design as closely as possible.” Id. at 139:09-12. In response to my follow-up question “So you are saying out of their own free will that they would follow the type certificate design? Not a mandate from someone?” Mr. Singh answered, “Well, it’s not their own — so the reason they seek the' approval they seek, yes, is to conform to the type certificate and design. Yeah, that’s a decision they make.” Id, Mr. Singh would go on to explain: [T]hat’s not how the PMA business works. If you want to make parts to put on [type-certificated] engines, you mimic the design as closely as possible. Right? You may not want to have to source your parts from- [the type certificate holder]. You may want to get them yourself cheaper. You may want to' sell them to whoever [sic ] you want to sell them to. All of that, as a matter of economics, makes perfect sense. Id. at 101:19-25. “Only the FAA or an [Organization Designation Authorization (ODA)] can issue PMA. DERs do not issue PMAs, but support the FAA approval process with findings within their limitations.” In addition, “a DER may only recommend approval within the scope of their authority for critical parts.” Id. FAA Order 8110.42D, Parts Manufacturer Approval Procedures, at 3-2 (hereinafter “FAA PMA Procedures’’). A “critical part” is typically one “for which a replacement time, inspection interval, or related procedure is specified in the Airworthiness Limitations section of a manufacturer’s maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness,” 14 C.F.R. § 45.15(c). Further, Appendix A to the FAA’s DER Handbook (entitled “Limitations on DER Functions”) specifically states, that “The following items are approved or. issued only by the FAA:.. .(d) TCs, PMAs,,. A provision in the Handbook directly reference the list of functions reserved to the FAA states: “[W]e generally reserve for ourselves the approval of items listed in appendix A, paragraph 2. If we do delegate, we should do it carefully and consistently as follows:... (4) PMA Design Approvals. A DER may make findings of identicality or findings of compliance to the airworthiness requirements by test and computation that contribute to PMA design approvals, within the scope of delegation from the project ACO. The DER must be specifically authorized to make a finding of identicality by the managing ACO.” The process for implementing design changes to a PMA tracks those for type certificates and type design changes. In particular, 14 G.F.R. § 21.319(a) defines a “minor change” to a PMA as “one that has no appreciable effect” on its basis for approval. All other design changes are “major changes.” Id. For major changes, the PMA holder “must obtain FAA approval” before including the change in a renewed design. Id. 21.319(b). Minor changes to the basic design of a PMA “may be approved using a method acceptable to the FAA.” Id. Recall that “a method acceptable to the FAA” is the same language that the FAA has previously interpreted in this case to require FAA approval before independent action can be taken. FAA Ltr. Br. at 5,15. The scope of a DER’s authority to implement posfc-PMA major repairs or alterations is limited in the samé way as his authority to make 'those repairs and alterations to type certificates. FAA DER Handbook at 27. F. The Subject Engine Leaves Ly-coming’s Hands In 1969, Only To Be Placed In Storage And Lost To Time. With that regulatory background in mind, I now turn to the operative facts of this case. The engine at issue, Lycoming model O-320-D2C, serial number L-654039A, was manufactured on August 13,1969 by Lycoming Engines in Williamsport, Ly-coming County, Pennsylvania. Expert Report of W. Jeffrey Edwards, ECF No. 384-1, at 57 (hereinafter “Edwards Report”). The engine was FAA certified under Lycoming’s E-274 Type Certificate on May 2,1966. On September 4,1969, shortly after Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, Lycoming shipped the engine at the heart of this dispute to Beagle Aircraft, Ltd., a British aircraft manufacturer. Declaration of James R. Stabley, ECF No. 221-1, ¶ 3 (hereinafter “Stabley Decl.”). Beagle apparently planned to install the engine in a small, single-engine model known as the Beagle Pup. Edwards Report at 57-58; May Tr. at 45:18-21. However, for reasons unknown to the parties and likely lost to history, the engine was diverted to permanent storage before it ever was installed on any aircraft whatsoever. Edwards Report at 67-58; Stabley Report at 4. According to Mr. Edwards’s report, Beagle was dissolved late in 1969 and its assets were liquidated. Edwards Report at 57. Lycoming has no record of the engine ever being returned to its factory for service after the original September 4, 1969 shipment. Stabley Deck ¶6. In fact, the “Received for Repairs” section of Lycom-ing’s internal engine record form for -the engine is entirely blank for that time period. ECF No. 221-1 Ex. A. Moreover, the parties suspect that the individual who signed certain of the earliest available records has either since died or has become non compos mentis. May 2017 Tr. at 10:14-19. Lycoming maintained no further records of the subject engine until after the accident was reported — it did not know where the engine was or even that it still existed. At the time Lycoming manufactured and shipped the engine to Beagle in 1969, the engine was equipped with a Marvel-Sche-bler model MA-4SPA, setting 10-3678-32, carburetor with serial number A-25-15850. Stabley Decl. ¶ 4. The carburetor is critical to ensuring that the engine itself generates sufficient power for the aircraft, as the carburetor is responsible for delivering the .appropriate mix of air and fuel for combustion in the engine. The specific workings of this carburetor are explained more fully herein. G. In 1998, After 29 Year In Storage, The Subject Engine Is Removed, Maintenance Is Performed, And The Engine Is Installed On An Aircraft For The First Time, Which Aircraft Did Not Even Exist In 1969. On September 1, 1998, the subject engine was removed from storage. Edwards Report at 59. One additional expert report submitted in‘this ease points out that during this period of long-term storage, the engine at least twice would have missed its scheduled 12-year overhaul date and therefore would not be in compliance with Lycoming’s service instructions. Expert Report of James R. Stabley, ECF No. 381-1, at 7 (hereinafter “Stabley Report”). The following maintenance was performed in 1998 as recorded in the engine’s logbook: (a) “Removed 4 cylinders and prop flange crankshaft plug, inspection found new condition”; (b) “Replaced cylinders using new Ly-coming original kits”; (c) “Replaced Prop Flange Bushings with new”; (d) “Replaced Magnetos with Slick mag and harness kit”; (e) “Install serviceable Alt Motorcraft 00 FF 103000 OH 1-23-95”; (f) “Install new OH carb 10-5135 SN CK-611739”; and (g) “Installed new Lycoming Alt drive belt, new Champion REM40E plugs.” Edwards Report at 59. By October 16, 1998, the engine was installed on a 1976 Cessna 172N bearing registration N73747 after a previous engine was removed from that same plane. Id. All of the maintenance work and reins-tallation was performed by a third-party and not by Lycoming. See id. at 58-59. In fact, at that time, the engine was not even type certificated for installation in the 1976 Cessna 172N, presumably because the Cessna 172N did not exist at the time Lycoming obtained the original type certificate for its engine. Id. See also Tr. of Nov. 13, 2013 Fed. R. Evid. 104 Hr’g, ECF No. 459, at 229:19-21 (hereinafter “Nov. 2013 Tr.”); May 2017 Tr. at 22:13-18. An exemplar of a Cessna 172N taken from Mr. Edwards’s Report is depicted below: All told, after having been left in storage for nearly three decades, the engine was removed, maintenance was performed, and it was installed an aircraft for which it was not originally certified and for which supplemental approval was required. The owner of the Cessna at that time was listed as LaGrange Machine Shop, Inc., whose business address was 1706 Shore-wood Drive, LaGrange, GA 30240. See ECF No. 234-1 at 6-7. Based on that same hoary 1998 maintenance record, the individual who performed the maintenance on behalf of LaGrange appears to be James O. Perry. Id. Nothing in the record indicates the LaGrange or Mr. Perry bore any relationship to Lycoming whatsoever. Until this litigation commenced, Lycoming likely never knew either existed. Because the engine was not type certificated for installation on a Cessna 172N, Mr. Perry was required to submit an FAA Major Alteration Form 337, dated December 1, 1998. See ECF No. 234-1 at 6-7. That alteration was field approved by Peter J. Van Leeuwuen, acting within the scope of his FAA inspection authorization. See id. at 6. On the approval form, Mr. Van Leeuwen’s address is the same as LaGrange’s above. Mr. Edwards’s report also suggests that the October 1998 installation did not comply with Lycoming Service Instruction 1009AM regarding overhaul periodicity and failed to address several outstanding airworthiness directives. Edwards Report at 59. This is “consistent with substandard maintenance,” Mr. Edwards wrote, as the aircraft was operated while not airworthy between October 1998 and December 1998, and again between December 1998 and August 2004. Id, According to Mr. Edwards, the reason that the engine required such immediate repair in December 1998 after its October 1998 installation was because it sustained a broken lifter body component after being placed into service for just 12.3 hours. Id. at 60. According to his report, “The engine had significant problems due to corrosion from its long-term storage, necessitating a complete disassembly and inspection.” Id. H. The Subject Aircraft Is Struck By Lightning, After Which Time And Without Lycoming’s Approval Or Knowledge, Kelly Aerospace Overhauls The Subject Carburetor And Replaces It With An Aftermarket Conglomerate, Pursuant To An Independent, Third-Party PMA From The FAA. . In July 2004, the engine was removed after the aircraft was struck by lightning. Stabley Report at 4; Edwards Report at 61. The record is unclear as-to .whether the strike, occurred while the aircraft was grounded or in flight and whether the aircraft was activated at the time of the strike. Nevertheless, from December 1998 until the July 2004 lightning strike, the aircraft flew for 1,262.6 problem-free hours. Stabley Report at 4; Edwards Report at 61. At that time and while the engine was removed for inspection, Triad Aviation, Inc., overhauled the entire engine. Stabley Report at 4;' Edwards Report at 62. During the overhaul, Triad removed the carburetor itself from the engine and sent it to Kelly Aerospace Power Systems to be overhauled separately. Kelly’s principal place of business was Alabama. Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 205, at ¶ 4. Under 14 C.F.R. § 43.2, “overhaul” is a regulatory term of art, which describes the process by which a component, using methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the FAA, has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, and reassembled. Overhaul methods must be conducted in accordance with FAA-approved standards and technical data, and adequately documented. Id. Component overhauls, for instance, follow a sort of Humpty-Dumpty process, whereby the components are disassembled and all of the internal parts are separated, repaired, or replaced, at which point the overhauling entity endeavors to put all of the pieces back together again. See Defendant Kelly’s Revised Responses to Lycoming’s Request for Admission, ECF No. 221-2 (hereinafter “Kelly Admissions”). As discussed earlier, the carburetor is the engine component that meters the air-fuel mixture supplied to the engine so that the combustion process functions efficiently and powers the engine accordingly. During the November 2013 Rule 104 Hearing before this Court, Plaintiffs expert, Donald E. Sommer, explained the significance of the carburetor to an aircraft engine, as well as how a carburetor'like the one at issue typically functions. Sitting upright, the bottom of the carburetor connects to the air box from which it receives air, and the top of the carburetor connects to the engine into which it supplies metered air. Nov. 2013 Tr. at 22:20-23:04. The bottom of the carburetor is called the float bowl because it is a bowl-shaped compartment that contains the fuel. Id. at 23:05-08. The top half of the carburetor is known as the throttle body bécause it contains the throttle, the device that meters the flow of air and' fuel to the engine. Id. at 23:08-11. The two parts parts — the float bowl and the throttle body — connected by four hex head screws and bolts. Id. at 23:11-13. Two schematics from Mr. Som-mer’s report are depicted below for reference: According to Mr. Sommer, it is very important that the carburetor regulate how much air passes through it, because the metered fuel should emerge as a fíne mist or spray. Id. at 24:17-20. If the fuel is emitted in globules or large droplets, however, the engine will not be able to burn it efficiently, and the aircraft’s horsepower will be minimal. Id. at 24:20-25. Eventually, if the fuel content in the mixture is continuously concentrated rather than finely dispersed, the engine may even cease to run. Id. at 24:25-25:01. In between the float bowl and the throttle body is a g