# RECEIVED

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION FEDERALAVIATIONADMINISTRATION 

# MAY 2 92013 Civil PenaltyAction 

# HEAA:t'NG ]lOCKET Inthe Matter of: 

### v. AVIATION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.,

. FDMS No. FAA-2013-0284 Case No. 2012CE440003 FAA DocketNo. TBA Judge: J.E. SULLIVAN ,· _·. :. t. }

### ----------------------------------~'**·~·** .... , ' ..;:, .. MOTIONFORMORE DEFINITE STATEMENT COMES NOW, AVIATION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., by and through their undersigned counsel, pursuantto Title 14 CFRPart 13 section 13.218(f)(3), and hereby files their Motion for More Definite Statement (the "Motion") of the Administrator's Complaint in this cause and as grounds therefore alleges: 1) The basis for Administrator's Complaint against Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. relies upon the allegation that "

..... no person may produce a modification or replacement part for sale UJor installation on a type certificated product unless it is produced pursuant to a Parts ManufacturerApproval issued under this subpart

....." .(inpertinent partandemphasis added). 2) However, the Administrators Complaint is deficient inthat it does not specifically allege: A) how and when the Avantair Repair Station (hereinafter "A vantair") came to be in possession ofthe alleged non-conformingparts; B) whetherthe parts were actually sold to Avantair; C) who produced the parts; D) who marked the parts "F AA-PMA" and the fashion inwhichthey were marked; E) how and when the parts came to be installed on the "Piaggo P-180 aircraft, Civil AircraftN134SL"; and F) how and when the FAA came to believe that Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Produced these nonconforming pat;ts for sale [f]or installation on the "Piaggo P-180 aircraft, Civil AircraftN134SL". 3) The Administrator bears the burden ofpleading with specificity allegations in support oftheir complaint against AviationEngineering Consultants, Inc. 4) The lack of this information will hinder Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. in the preparation of a proper answer to the Administrator's Complaint and the defense of this
cause. WHEREFORE, Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. requests this honorable court enter an order instructing the Administrator supply a more definite statement specifically stating:1) Howthe non-conformingparts came to be inpossession ofAvantair; 2) Whether these parts were actually sold to Avantair by Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc.; 3) Whenthese nonconforming parts were produced and by whom; 4) The fashion inwhich these nonconforming parts were marked, when and bywhom; 5) How and when the parts came to be installed on the "Piaggo P-180 aircraft, Civil Aircraft N134SL"; and 6) How and when the FAA came to believe that Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. produced these non-conforming parts for sale [f]or installation on the "Piaggo P-180 aircraft, Civil Aircraft N134SL".
or strike the allegations against Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. contained in the Administrators Complaint. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing was served via confirmed facsimile and United States Mail receipt #

## ~I**5"~3qb** 

# Y"3 

# 60 

# If5 , on the 28th day of May, 2013, to: Mark Camacho, Esquire, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Regional Counsel, Central Region, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, MO 64106-2641, facsimile: (816) 329-3771, and that this Motion (and one copy) and copy ofthe Administrator's Complaint were filed this 28th Day of May, 2013, withthe FAA hearing docket clerk, 800 Independence Ave. S.W., Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, WilburWright Building, Room 2014, Washington, D.C. 20591, and the Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge, Office of Hearings, U.S. Department ofTransportation, 1200NewJersey Ave. S.E. (Ell-310), Washington, D.C. 20590, facsimile: (202) 366-7536.

# BY~ Douglas J. Barnard, Esquire Fla. BarNo. 0928496 Plane Law, P.A. 14695 Airport Parkway, Suite 6 Clearwater, Florida 33762 Telephone: (727) 259-0224 Fax: (727) 259-0223 dougb@planelaw.com

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

# TRANSPORTATIO~

# E

# CEIVED FEDERAL AviATioNADMINISTRATio:N

# n MAY

# 292013 Served: May 7, 2013

## fri};_~ING**~** FAA Docket No. Inthe Matter of:
FAA Case No. 2012CE440003

__**Av_ia_ti_o_n_E_n-'='g'-in_e_er_in~g"'---C_o_ns_u_lt_a_n_ts..:....,**

### _In_c_._____, Judge NotAssigned COMPLAINT
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.P.R. 13.208), and states as follows: 

### I. 1. On March 28,2012, Respondent Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. (AECI)
was advised through a Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty that the FAAproposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of$44,000. On April22, 2013, Respondent submitted a written request for a hearing. 

### II. 1. On or about December 23, 2010, AECI shipped eight elevator center hinge fittings, part number 80-393103-405, and eight elevator outboard hinge fittings, partnumber 80- 393103-407, to Avantair, Inc. 2. On or about October 14, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), while conducting an inspection ofthe Avantair Repair Station, discovered that four ofthe parts described inparagraph 1 above (two elevator center hinge fittings, part numbr 80-393103- 405AEC, and two elevator outboard hinge fittings, part number 80-393103-407AEC) were installed on a Piaggo P-180 aircraft, Civil AircraftN134SL. 3. The parts described in paragraph 2 above were marked "FAA-PMA." However, the FAA had not granted Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) to Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. to produce thoseparts.

### III. 1. By reason ofthe foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated Section 21.303(a) ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations, which provides that, except as provided in paragraph (b) ofthis section, no person mayproduce a modification orreplacementpart for sale for installation on a type ce1iificated product unless it is produced pursuant to a Parts Manufacturer Approval issuedunderthis subpart [Title 14 ofthe Code ofFedderal Regulations· (CFR), Section 21.303(a)]. 2. Pursuant to Title 49 U.S.C. 46301, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty notto**exce~d** 

### $11,000 for each ofthe violations alleged. 3. Under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil penalty of$44,000 is appropriate. WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge enter an orderthatRespondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of$44,000.
Dated this 

## ih day ofMay, 2013. Respectfully submitted, A. Lester Haizlip Regional Counsel By:

Mark G. Camacho Attorney for Complainant Federal Aviation Administration 901 Locust St., Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 816-329-3765; Fax (816) 329-3771 2In the Matter of: 

### v. 

# CE'VED 

# RE

.. :· · · .-. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION 

# MAY! 92DD
Civil PenaltyAction 

# HEARING DOCKET FEDERALAVIATIONADMINISTRATION

AVIATION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., FDMS No. FAA-2013-0284 Case No. 2012CE440003 FAA Docket No. TBA Judge: J.E. SULLIVAN

### ----------------------------------~' MOTIONFORMORE DEFINITE STATEMENT COMES NOW, AVIATION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., by and through their undersigned counsel, pursuant to Title 14 CFR Part 13 section 13.218(f)(3), and hereby files their Motion for More Definite Statement (the "Motion") of the Administrator's Complaint in this cause and as grotmds therefore alleges: 1) The basis for Administrator's Complaint against Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. relies upon the allegation that "

..... no person may produce a modification or replacement part for sale UJor installation on a type certificated product unless it is produced pursuant to a Parts Manufacturer Approval issued under this subpart

....." .(inpertinentpartandemphasis added). 2) However, the Administrators Complaint is deficient inthat it does not specifically allege: A) how and when the Avantair Repair Station (hereinafter "Avantair") came to be in possession ofthe alleged non-conforming parts; B) whetherthe parts were actually sold to Avantair; C) who produced the parts; D) who marked the parts "FAA-PMA" and the fashion in which they were marked; E) how and when the parts came to be installed on the "Piaggo P-180 aircraft, Civil AircraftN134SL"; and F) how and when the FAA came to believe that Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. Produced these nonconforming parts for sale [f]or installation on the "Piaggo P-180 aircraft, Civil Aircraft N134SL". 3) The Administrator bears the burden ofpleading with specificity a11egations in support oftheir complaint against Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. 4) The lack of this information will hinder Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. in the preparation of a proper answer to the Administrator's Complaint and the defense of this
cause. WHEREFORE, Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. requests this honorable court enter an order" instructing the Administrator supply a more definite statement specifically stating:1) How the non-conforming parts came to be in possession ofAvantair; 2) Whether these parts were actually sold to Avantair by Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc.; 3) When these nonconforming parts were produced and by whom; 4) The fashion in which these nonconforming parts were marked, when and by whom; 5) How and when the parts came to be installed on the "Piaggo P-180 aircraft, Civil Aircraft N1 34SL"; and 6) How and when the FAA came to believe that Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. produced these non-conforming parts for sale [f]or installation on the "Piaggo P-180 aircraft, Civil Aircraft NJ34SL".
or strike the allegations against Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. contained in the Administrators Complaint. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing was served via confirmed facsimile and United States Mail receipt # 

# J!;

# I §

# 33

# o/6.¥ ;363 

# US , on the 28th day of May, 2013, to: Mark Camacho, Esquire, Federal. Aviation Administration, Office of the Regional Counsel, Central Region, 901 Locust , Room 506, Kansas City, MO 64106-2641, facsimile: (816) 329-3771, and that this Motion (and one copy) and copy ofthe Administrator's Complaint were filed this 28th Day of May, 2013, with the FAA hearing docket clerk, 800 Independence Ave. S.W., Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, WilburWright Building, Room 2014, Washington, D.C. 20591, and the Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge, Office ofHearings, U.S. Department ofTransportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E. (El 1-310), Washington, D.C. 20590, facsimile: (202) 366-7536.

# ~~~**BY:~---**256

__ 

# ...L..:::::V

__

# ~------- Douglas J. Barnard, Esquire Fla. Bar No. 0928496 Plane Law, P.A. 14695 Airport Parkway, Suite 6 Clearwater, Florida 33762 Telephone: (727) 259-0224 Fax: (727) 259-0223 dougb@planelaw.com

### In the Matter of: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Served: May 7, 2013 FAA DocketNo. FAA Case No. 2012CE440003

### ---.:...:.A::..:_v.::..:ia.:...::ti:..::.o=n-=E=n::>;;g~in=e.:...::er=-=i=ng~C..::..o=n.::..:su:...:l..:..::tan=ts**,**=In:::..c::..:_.---' Judge NotAssigned 

### COMPLAINT 

# RECEIVED MAY 2 92013 

# HEARING DOCKET

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint, pursuantto Rule 208 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 

### C.P.R. 13.208), and states as follows: 

### I. 1. On March 28,2012, Respondent Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. (AECI)
was advised through a Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty thatthe FAAproposedto assess a civil penalty in the amount of$44,000. On April22, 2013, Respondent submitted a writtenrequest for a hearing. 

### II. 1. On or about December 23, 2010, AECI shipped eight elevator center hinge fittings, part number 80-393103-405, and eight elevator outboard hinge fittings, part number 80- 393103-407, to Avantair, Inc. 2. On or about October 14, 2011, the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), while conducting an inspection oftheAvantairRepair Station, discovered that four ofthe parts described inparagraph 1 above (two elevator center hinge fittings, part numbr 80-393103- 405AEC, and two elevator outboard hinge fittings, part number 80-393103-407 AEC) were installed on a Piaggo P-180 aircraft, Civil Aircraft N134SL. 3. The parts described inparagraph 2 above were marked "FAA-PMA." However, the FAAhad not granted Parts ManufacturerApproval (PMA) to AviationEngineering Consultants, Inc. to producethoseparts.

### III. 1. Byreason ofthe foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated Section 21.303(a) ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations, which provides that, except as provided in paragraph (b) ofthis·section, no person mayproduce a modification or replacement part for sale for installation on a type certificated product unless it is producedpursuant to a Parts Manufacturer Approval issued under this subpart [Title 14 ofthe Code ofFedderal Regulations. (CFR), Section 21.303(a)]. 2. Pursuantto Title 49 U.S.C. 46301, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000 for each ofthe violations alleged. 3. Under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil penalty of$44,000 is appropriate. WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel, respectfully requests thatthe Administrative Law Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty inthe amount of$44,000.
Datedthis 7th day ofMay, 2013. Respectfully submitted, A. 

### Lester Haizlip Regional Counsel By:

Mark G. Camacho Attorney for Complainant Federal Aviation Administration 901 Locust St., Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 816-329-3765; Fax (816) 329-3771 2