### I. Glossary ASI C.P.R. FAA FAA# FAR FSDO Grace HNL KOA Monfort NPCP OGG OpSpecs 

### SERVED: August 31,2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
·' ·.:·;.i.' IN THE 1MATTER OF SCHUMAN AVIATION COMPANY, LTD.

FAADOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA 

### 2013- 1080
INITIAL DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
Aviation Safety Inspector Code ofFederal Regulations Federal Aviation Administration

0 0 j**~~-~** • FAA Ex1¥b1t,**~~** ,, "i
..., , Federal Aviation Regulation Flight Standards District Office Darryl Grace, Director ofOperations for Mokulele Airlines Honolulu, HI Kailua-Kana International Airport, Kona, HI Joseph Monfort Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty Kahului, Maui Operations Specificationsf:O·;·**r~** 

### ..\· · i ., 

### S# Schuman Exhibit U.S.C. United States Code II. Introductory Comment Between September 8, 2012, and September 13,2008, Schuman Aviation Company, Ltd. (hereinafter "Schuman") operated out ofKailua-Kana International Airport, Kona, Hawaii (hereinafter "KOA"), an airport it was not authorized for scheduled operations by Schuman's OpSpecs C070-2. On or about September 1 7, 2012, the FAA requested to inspect Schuman's records regarding the above flights. Schuman initialJy refu§ed to make any records available, but \. ,;.- informed the FAA approximately two (2) hours later that Schuman would comply with the request. III. Procedural History The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") advised the Respondent, Schuman Aviation Company, Ltd. (hereinafter "Schuman"") through a Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty and Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty that the FAAproposed to assess a civil penalty inthe amount of$28,000.00. OnFebruary 5, 2014, Schuman submitted a writtenrequest for a hearing. The FAA filed its Complaint on February 12, 2014. Schuman answered the FAA's Conipll;lint,p:A'February 26,2014. IV. Hearing A hearing was held onDecember 4, 2014, in Honolulu, HI. The FAA was represented by Don Bobertz, Esq., FAA, Western-Pacific Region, Office ofRegional Counsel, Los Angeles, CA.

2Schumanwas represented by Christopher D. Ferrara, Esq., Honolulu, HI. Posthearing briefs were filed by both parties. The matter is nowready for decision. V. Jurisdiction Schumanwas at all times mentioned herein, the holder ofAir Carrier Certificate No. MKHA108K, and authorized to conduct scheduled air carrier service under Part 135 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (hereinafter "FAR"s) and was subjectto those regulations. VI. Burden ofProof The FAA was the petitioning party with the initial burden ofproof(14 C.F.R. § 13.224). VII. Allegations A. FAA's recitation offacts 1. Schumanwas the holder ofAir Carrier Certificate No. MKHA108K, authorized to conduct scheduled air carrier service under part 135 ofthe FARs. 2. Schuman's Operations Specificatiom{(liereHidfter "OpSpecs") C070, "Airports Authorized for Scheduled Operations" stated that Schumanwas "authorized to conduct scheduledpassenger and cargo operations betweenthe regular, refueling, and provisional airports" only at the airports listed on C070-2. 3. At all relevant times, Kailua-Kana International Airport, Kona, Hawaii (hereinafter "KOA"), was not an airport authorized for scheduled operations by Schuman's OpSpecs C070-2. 4. Between September 8, 2012, and September 13, 2008, Schuman operated civil aircrafts N687MA andN865MA, both Cessna 208B aircraft on approximatelytwenty-four (24) round trip flights to KOA.
31•



### .5. On or about September 17, 2012, the FAA requested to inspect Schuman's records regarding the above flights. 6. Schuman initially refused to make any records available, but informed the FAA approximately two (2) hours later that Schuman would comply with the request. 7. On or about September 21, 2012, Shuman provided the requested records to the FAA. The FAA alleged by reason ofthe foregoing facts and circumstances, Schumanviolated the following Sections ofthe FARs 

### (Title 14, Code of FederalRegulations (hereinafter "CFR"): 

### 14 C.FR. 119.5(g), which states that "[n]o person may operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator without, or in violation of, an appropriate certificate and appropriate operations specifications." 

### 14 C.FR. 135.73, which states: :"Each.Ret1i5.Cifte holder and each person employed bythe certificate holder shall allowthe Administrator, at any time or place, to make inspections or tests (including enroute inspections) to detemline the holder's compliance with the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, applicable regulations, and the certificate holder's operating certificate, and operations specifications." The FAA alleged, pursuant to 

### Title 49 US. C. Section 46301, Respondent was subject to a civil penalty notto exceed $11,000.00 for each ofthe violations alleged. The FAA alleged, under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil penalty of $28,000.00 was appropriate. B. Schuman's recitation offacts Schuman Answered: FIRST DEFENSE 1. The Administrator's Complaint failed;

## tb~:sf~~~(;a cause ofaction upon which reliefcould be granted. SECOND DEFENSE 2. Respondent admitted the allegations in paragraphs 

### I; II, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 ofthe FAA's Complaint. 

### 43. Respondent averred it was without knowledge ofthe actual date inthe allegation contained in paragraph II, 5 ofthe FAA's Complaint, and therefore denied the same. 4. Respondent denied the allegation contained in paragraph II, 6 ofthe FAA's Complaint. 5. Respondent denied the applicability

### of:par~£_bph III, a and b and paragraph IV, 1 and 2
' •. ..• { ofthe FAA's Complaint. THIRD DEFENSE 6. Schumanintended to rely on any and all Affirmative Defenses that were available, the applicability ofwhich might be determined and/or disclosed by investigation and/or discovery. VIII. Issues Did Schuman violate 

### 14 C.FR. 119.5(g), and 

### 14 C.FR. 135.73 ofthe FARs. IfSchuman violated the above provisions ofthe C.F.Rs. was a fine of$28,000.00 appropriate under the circumstances.
.• ,i, '**C:{:,,,r\~r.:** IX. Summary ofTestimony and Evidence J ·; All admitted testimonial and documentary evidence was reviewed and considered. Only briefhighlights are summarized herein. A. FAA's Case 

### Joseph Monfort1 Joseph Monfort (hereinafter "Monfort") was employedby the FAA atthe Honolulu (hereinafter ",HNL") Flight Standards District Office (hereinafter "FSDO") as an Aviation Safety Inspector (hereinafter "ASI") at the time ofthe alleged violations. He had been employed approximately five '(5) years. He had primary oversight ofgeneral aviation inthe islands.

. ..**~~- r~Y\-.··f~:.;·\'**  .

.•. ... 1Tr. p. 9, I. 11 top. 32, I. 20 5He was the principal operations inspector for Schuman and routinely conducted surveillance ofall Part 135 operations. He was notified in September 2012 there were commuter operations conducted by Schuman at Kona airport. He reviewed the files for Schuman, verified that he did not have the operation specifications, "Charlie 070" (hereinafter "C070") to conduct commuter operations in to Kona, so he and Bartler 2 went over to Schuman's office to find outwhatwas going on. Atthe interview, when Monfort inquired aboutthe operations, Schuman denied doing commuter operations. Schuman said he was doing "on-demand charter", and he could do as many as he wanted, as often as he

## want~d. Monfortreviewed C070, which was issued to Schuman as ofthe date ofSeptember 17,2012 (FAA# 1). Monfortpointed outthatunder operation specification C070, page two, there was a list ofairport cities where Schumanwas authorized to conduct commuter operations and Kona was not listed onthatpage. During the interview, when Monfort and Bartler mentioned that Schuman could not conduct commuter operations into Kona, Schuman disagreed, so Monfort and Bartler asked to
see his maintenance logs, daily flight logs. At that point intime, Mr. Schuman said, no, I don't think so. Monforttestified he and Bartler said:

...are you sure that's whatyou want to do? He says: Yeah, I don't think so, and hebacked away from his desk. Atthat point in time, we got up and we walked out ofthe office. It was a very short meeting
...
f ' \ • .,:· Monforttestified Schumanwas under the impressionhe could do on-demand operations
or charter operations from Mokulele Airlines and hebelieved thathe could do that as often as he liked. Monfort testified, two hours later, Schuman called me, after contacting his lawyer, and he said the records wouldbe made available to us. Schuman delivered the records to the FSDO

2 Kyle Bartler, see ID below. 6

### sometime later. Monfort reviewed FAA# 2 and 3. FAA# 2 was his statement, which was given limited weight because it was cumulative to the live testimony at the hearing.

,, 

### FAA# 3 was the daily flight logs or run sheets for the Cessna Caravan. The document showed the actualcommuter flights that were conducted for Mokulele by Schuman with this aircraft. There were two (2) flights that day onthe page one ofeight, and ithad the time periods, the actual aircraft hours, when they took off, when they landed, howmuch time was accumulated between each flight. These notations recurred on multiple pages. Onpage three ofeight, it showed Kahului, Maui (hereinafter "OGG"), KOA, KOA, OGG. OGG. The records indicated operations between Kona and Maui. There were two different aircraft used 687 Mike Alpha and 65 Mike Alpha. Once the FAA identified that the actual flights to Kona were done from Mokulele, the FAA requested records from Mokulele Airlines,3 

### to give the FAA their published schedule and which flights Schuman flew those published schedules for. The FAAreceived a document Darryl Grace4 

### (hereinafter "Grace") showing the actual commuter scheduled airline operations. FAA# 5 showed the flights were scheduled operations, which was the basis for a commuter airline. In other words, a ticket was sold for a certain time, from a certain airport to a certain place,justlike you would goto an airline. When this operation was conducted onthese days, it
was a scheduled commuter operation. The flights that went between Kona and OGG were preplanned flights by Mokulele, which were conducted by Schuman Aviation. Onpage four ofsix,
were the actual logs bythe flight-locating system for Mokulele, and with the estimated time of departures and their estimated time ofarrivals, and their actual times, inputted by an individual,

' 

### '·

-- )**~~** 3 FAA# 4, Ltr. to Darryl Grace, Director ofOperations for Mokulele 4 FAA# 5. 

### 7

### when they landed and when they took off. The first two pages were the flights conductedby Schuman for Mokulele, and the pilot's name that conducted those flights from Schuman. Cross5 

### Monfort had not been involved in management in prior employment. He was a line pilot. Schuman told Monfort he had amended the OpSpecs about four months prior to the inspection allowing Schuman to operate into Lahaina and Lanai. Schuman told Monfort he had been in the commuterbusiness for over a year, a year and ahalfat the time, and he had previously amended the OpSpecs. Schumanprincipally operated from Mokulele into Lanai and Lahaina. Kalaupapawas a very small airport that was difficult to fly in, butthe same requirements for the commuter operation existed at Kona as they did at Kalaupapa. The weather at Lanai was pretty much island weather, the same as everywhere. Kona was a single, very long runway airpprt. Monfort testified Schuman ultimately applied for and received OpSpecs allowing him to operate out ofKona. Schumanhad asked to do on-demand operations for Mokulele inthe past, and Monfort informed him that he had to have same operation specifications at Mokuleleto support Mokulele commuter operations. Had Schuman asked me for the Konaroute, Monfort would have gone through the**catygori~al** 

### exclusion, requested an amendmentto his operation specifications, and wouldhave gone through the proper procedure to authorize him to conduct Kona operations,just like we did Lahaina andLanaiCity. Had Monfort knownthathe was requesting to go to Kona, he would have started the process to issue him and go through the requirements to issue C070 into Kona.

5 Tr. p. 34, 1. 5 top. 60, 1. 7. 8

### On the date in question, when Monfort requested records, and he was denied
access. Schuman immediatelypulled the aircraft out ofKona and brought it back to Honolulu. There was no requirement for the FAA to notify the operator prior to an inspection. The FAAnormally employed two inspectors when it conducted an investigation. In accordance with the 135 

### rules and regulations, an inspector can inspect at any time and any place, and all the records that are available should be made available to us. Monfort did not know Schuman was conducting Kona operations. Early in the morning ofthe 17th, Monfortwas told there was a possibility that Schuman was conducting commuter operations out ofKona. Monfort talked to his front-line manager,**·~** '/· ,..;;:.**·iy~;l** 

### and then he and Bartler proceeded over to Schuman's office. Schuman kept a copy of logs file in his maintenance records downstairs in his office. Plus he had an All Pro System that identified where the aircraft go and come from. When Mr. Schuman called Monfort two, two and a halfhours later, there was no question thathe was going to deliver the records. After his initial denial, he said he wanted to talk to his lawyerbefore he gave us the records. Had he told us the records
were not there, this would be a non-issue. It's the initial-- that he denied it, that we were shocked. Redirect6

...-. ..::·

6 Tr. p. 60, I. 10 top. 61, I. 7. 9

### To get an amendmentto OpSpecs, an operator normally provided the FAAa letter saying where he wantedto go - start from and go to
- and provided a list ofaltitudes that he'd be at where the single engine aircraft could make easy glide, or in the event of engine failure, could land on land. It was a seven page, eightpage document. That document was signed by the operator and then finalized and issued bythe FAA. Recross7 

### Because Schuman did not have faciJJties,: 1 

### to operate, orhandle passengers out of Kona, except for the ones thatMokulele would provide, Monfortjustneeded to see the agreement. Eight (8) days later itwas issued to him through the proper requests. Kyle Bartler8 

### Kyle Bartler (hereinafter "Bartler") corroborated the testimony ofMonfort. Evidence The following FAA exhibits were admitted: FAA# 1, FAA# 2, FAA# 3, FAA# 4, FAA# 5, FAA# 6, FAA# 8, FAA# 9 We tookjudicial notice ofFAA# 7, FAA Order 2150.3B, consistent with pastpractices of this court. B. Schuman's Case 

### Gustav R. 

### Scbuman9 

### Schumantestified he owned Schuman. In the summer of2012 Mokulele contacted Schuman about supporting Mokulele to with their commuter scheduled operations from Oahu to Molokai, Molokai to Maui that may include Lanai and Kapalua. Schumanbelieved at thattime,

7 Tr. p. 61, l. 13 top. 65, l. 22. 8 Tr. p. 65, 1. II top. 74, 1. 1. 9 Tr. p. 83, 1. 9 top. I32, 1. 6. 

### 10.that he could comply with Mr. Grace's requests because they were an authorized Part 135·ondemand carrier. Schuman attempted to· contact.**the~FAA** but was unsuccessful. Schuman believed the flights were legal. Whenthe FAA informed Schumanhe was not authorized to performthe missions, they immediately ceased the operations. Schuman admitted denying the FAA access to his records. Schuman admitted thattwo hours later he calledthe FAA and offeredto produce the records. C. Credibility determinations All witnesses were found to be credible. X. Analysis ofEvidence and Testimony FAA's case 

### A. 14 C.F.R. 119.5(g) provides: No personmay operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator without, or in violation of, an appropriate certificate and appropriate operations specifications. No person may operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator inviolation ofany deviation or exemption authority, ifissued to that person orthatperson's representative. 

### B. 14 C.F.R. 135.73 provides:· Each certificate holder and eachperson employedbythe certificate holder shall allowthe Administrator, at any time orplace, to make inspections or tests (including enroute inspections) to determine the holder's compliance with the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, applicable regulations, and the certificate holder's operating certificate, and operations specifications. XI. Law 

### A. The FAAhas the burden ofproof, except for affirmative defenses 

### 14 C.F.R. §§ 

### 13.224(a) and (c). The standard is

### aprep'ondenh~ce ofreliable, probative, and substantial evidence 

### 14 C.F.R. § 

### 13.223.

11B. 

### 49 US. C. 

### §§ 46301(a) and (d) (Transportation) provides for the imposition ofcivil penalties in FAA cases. A person is liableto the United States Government for a civil penalty ofnot more than $25,000 for violating
... (B) a regulation prescribed or order issued under any provisionto which clause (A) ofthis paragraph applies." The authority for issuing Parts 119 and 121 of 14 C.P.R. includes 49 U.S.C. Chapters 401, 441, and 447- all ofwhich are covered by clause (A). 

### 49 USC.§ 46301(a)(1)(A), 14 C.F.R. Parts 119 and 

### 121 (Preamble). C. 

### 14 C.F.R. 119.5(g) provides: No person may operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator without, or in violation of, an appropriate**cert~ficate~p~ ~ppropriate**  operations specifications. No person may operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator in violation ofany deviation or exemption authority, ifissued to that person or thatperson's representative. D. 

### 14 C.F.R. 135.73 provides: Each certificate holder and each person employed by the certificate holder shall allowthe Administrator, at any time or place, to make inspections ortests (including enroute inspections) to determine the holder's compliance withthe Federal Aviation Act of 1958, applicable regulations; and the certificate holder's operating certificate, and operations specifications. XII. Findings ofFact We find thatthe evidentiary facts, by a preponderance ofthe evidence standard, do support a findings that the following violations occurred:

A. 

### 14 C.F.R. 119.5(g) provides: No person may operate as a dirJet

## air,6'krrX~~gr as a commercial operator without, or in violation of, an appropriate certificate and appropriate operations specifications. No personmay operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator inviolation ofany deviation or exemption authority, ifissued to thatperson orthat person's representative. B. 

### 14 C.F.R. 135.73 provides: Each certificate holder and eachperson employed bythe certificate holder shall allowthe Administrator, at any time or place, to make inspections ortests (including enroute inspections) to determine the holder's compliance withthe Federal Aviation Act of 1958, applicable regulations, and the certificate holder's operating certificate, and operations specifications.
12XIII. Conclusions We find thatthe evidentiary facts, by a preponderance ofthe evidence standard, support a l I·'**r~··** , pf}'f ;1 · 1 'i+r"'[C· r ·· finding that Schumanviolated 14 C.F.R. J19:5(g)'in'that Schuman operated as a direct air carrier
or as a commercial operator inviolation ofa deviation or exemption authority. We find thatthe evidentiary facts, by a preponderance ofthe evidence standard, support a finding that Schuman violated 14 C.F.R. 135.73 inthat Schuman denied the Administrator to make inspections ortests (including en route inspections) to determine the holder's compliance withthe Federal Aviation Act of 1958, applicable regulations, and the certificate holder's operating certificate, and operations specifications. XIV. Penalty and Mitigation Considerations Schuman subsequently allowed the FAA to inspect its records. Schuman immediately ceased operation&.,)Vh,eU;..informed it was in violation ofthe FARs.**~t** f {**i·~:··to-!** i:'
.... We found the violations alleged. Schumanwas not initially cooperative and responsive to FAA concerns. Once notified ofthe discrepancies/violations, Schumantook swift, comprehensive corrective action. Schumanpresented testimony thatthe penalty requested would severe impact its operations. The FAA failed to prove by testimony and/or evidence ofhowit arrived at the figure of $11,000 for each violation. We are left to speculate howthe figures of$11,000 and $28,000
were determined.

,, While a penalty calculated in

### a&ordcirlet~

# wi¥rfthe FAA's policy guidance should stand, absent a showing ofthe Schuman's inability to pay, the evidence andtestimony did not support
13the penalty requested. While the FAAwas entitledto substantial deference in establishing an appropriate civil penalty, we cannot ignore ourrole to evaluate the testimony and evidence. A. Sanctions guidance FAA Order 2150.3B Appendix C sets forth the penalty policy ofthe FAA. 10 As a general matter, a sanction should be imposed that is a sufficient deterrent but not excessive, in orderto comply withthe underlying purposes ofthe Federal hazardous material transportation law and



### .**:~. }.>:;!:~~·** **f:.Ji~:>;~** HMR. The FAA considers a variety offactors wheri determining an appropriate civil penalty, including: (1) the nature and circumstances ofthe violation; (2) the extent and gravity ofthe violation; (3) the person's degree ofculpability; (4) the person's history ofprior violations, if any; (5) the per!:!on's ability to paythe civil p.enalty; (6) the effect on the person's ability to stay in.business; and (7) other matters asjustice may require. 11 Any determination ofpenalty should weigh whetherthe violationwas inadvertent or deliberate, the private or public character ofthe violation, andthe attitude ofthe violator. The agency should also considerthe respondent's size, particularly in determining the offender's ability to absorb the sanction. An appropriate civil penalty must reflectthe totality ofthe circumstances surrounding the violati0ns,**~q$tern**

### Air Center, Inc., FAA Order No.**j;.~** ' '.**~:;'".:) '"~-,.,·** .•1**~**..**~** 2008-3 (January 28, 2008). Finally, the civil penalty should provide sufficient incentive to deter the respondent and similarly-situated entities from future violations. 

### Folsom'sAir Service, Inc., Id, 

### p. 20. The FAA has the burden of justifyingthe amount ofcivil penalty sought. 12 The FAA's

1

## °

Folsom'sAirService, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 2008-11, 2008 WL 4948488 (November 6, 2008). 11 Id. See also EasternAir Center, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 2008-3, 2008 WL 345386 (2008). 12 In The Matter of' Phyllis Jones Luxemburg, 1994 WL 899676 (1994), citingIn the Matter of NorthwestAirlines, FAA Order No. 90-37 at 7 (November 7, 1990). 14

,. ,\ ,,**'G<~t** 'I;,•.**I~.',** ,: lo• 'proposed sanction is no more than a proposal or a recommendation to the ALJ
.13 TheFAAmust



## ..**~ ~.** **~:r~~ ~** 

.**··~~ ~**  : prove to the ALJ how it used the sanction guidance to arrive at its proposal. 14 The FAAmust also prove the existence ofaggravating factors and must showhow it used aggravating or mitigating factors to adjust the suggested sanction.**Evid~nce** ofswift comprehensive corrective

. action must be considered as a mitigating factor. Significant weighthas been givento

respondent's efforts to ensure that a violation will notreoccur. 15 B. Analysis Schuman violated two (2) provisions ofthe FARs as set forth above. The FAApresented no evidence that it considered the nature and circumstances ofthe violations, the extent in gravity related to the violations, any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, or whether Regent's ability to.nay

## v¥'as taken into account. The FAAfailed to prove to the ALJ how itused the sanction guidance to arrive at its proposal. The FAA failed to prove the existence ofaggravating factors and failed to showhow it used aggravating or mitigating factors to adjust the suggested sanction. Taking the totality ofthe facts and circumstances into account, we conclude a fine of $5,000 for each ofthe two (2) violations is appropriate, for a total fine of$10,000. WHEREFORE, evidence and testimony having beenheard and considered itbe and is hereby ORDERED as follows:
a. We find the FAA proved Schuman violated 

### 14 C.F.R. 119.5(g) and 

### 14 C.F.R. 

### 135. 73; and

13 In the Matter of EasternAir Center, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-3, 2008 WL 345386 (2008). 14 In the Matter ofWarbelow'sAir Ventures, Inc., FAA Order 2000-3, 2000 WL 298578 (2000). 15 In theMatter of AmericanAirNetwork, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 2006-5, 2006 WL 465369 (2006). See also In the Matter of AirtranAirways, Inc., DocketNo. FAA- 2010-0193, Initial Decision (June 23, 2010). 15b. Schuman be and is hereby assessed fines of$5,000 for each ofthe two (2) violations for a total fine of$10,000.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment- Service List ,, . · ..**l~'; \{{.~.;** 

16

'.**~·** -.SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 ONE COPY 

### Gustav Richard Schuman, President 

### Schuman Aviation Company, Ltd., Respondent 

### 130 Iolana Place Honolulu, HI 96819 TEL: NOT PROVIDED FAX: NOT PROVIDED Christopher D. Ferrara, Respondent's Counsel 

### 3555 Harding Avenue, Suite 2F Honolulu, HI 96816 TEL: 808-522-1660 FAX: 808-522-1661 EMAIL: chris@ferraralawhawaii.com Don Bobertz, Complainant's Counsel 

### Office ofthe Regional Counsel, Western Pacific Region, AWP-7 Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-3454 FAX: 310-725-6816 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative Law Judge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-1080 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 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 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### 17