U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration 

### SI:P 1 2 2014 Southern Region Office of the Regional Counsel

CERTIFIED- RETURN RECEIPTREQUESTED Hearing Docket Clerk FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2W1000 Wilbur Wright Building 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Re: Inthe Matter ofMiami TechAircraftMaintenance, Inc. FAA CaseNo. 2010S0190295 P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, Georgia 30320 (404) 305-5200 (404) 305-5223 FAX 

# RECEIVED SEP 1 8 2014 HEARING DOCKET

Enclosed herewith please find a copy ofa request for hearing and the original and one copy of the Complaint in the above-referencedproceeding. The FAArequests that the hearing inthis matterbeheld in the Miami, Florida, area, and expects thatthe hearing will lastthree days. Please address all communications for the FAAto the undersigned at: Federal AviationAdministration Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ASO-7 SouthernRegion 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 Telephone: (404) 305-5200 Facsimile: (404) 305-5223 SincerelyJ



# W0.--
WilliamVines, Esq. Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel EnclosuresU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Complainant,
vs. Miami Tech Aircraft Maintenance, Inc. Respondent. FAA Docket

**No.~----~**

**Judge-------~**

COMPLAINT The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.F.R. 13.208), and states as follows: I. On August 28, 2014, Respondent, Miami Tech Aircraft Maintenance, Inc. was advised through a Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of$18,700. On September 4, 2014, the Agency Attorney received a writtenrequest for ahearing from the Respondent. II. 1. At all times material herein Respondent Miami Tech Aircraft Maintenance, Inc., (formerly "Miami Tech Line Maintenance Support, Inc.") (hereinafter "MT"), was and is now the holder ofAir Agency (Repair Station) Certificate No. XK7R917X, with Limited Airframe, Limited Power Plant, Limited Instruments, and Limited Radio ratings. Count I 2. MT's Repair Station Manual requires MT to "perform [maintenance, preventive maintenance] in accordance with the operator's manual, manufacturer's maintenance manual, approvedtechnical data, or as designated bythe operator." 3. On or about August 24, 2009, MT mechanics performed maintenance on N526MD, a McDonnell-Douglas DC-10-30.a. The maintenance consisted of removing the #1 ATC transponder, a mode S transponder, and replacing it with another mode S transponder, pursuant to the Boeing DC-I0 Aircraft Maintenance Manual sections 34-54-00 and section 34- 54-03. b. The data, methods, techniques, and/or practices contained in Boeing DC-I0 Aircraft Maintenance Manual sections 34-54-00 and section 34-54-03 are not applicable to the #I ATC mode S transponder, in that the manuals reference removal, replacement, and testing ofamode A and/or Ctransponder. 4. On or about March I, 2010, MT mechanics performed maintenance on N526MD, a McDonnell-Douglas DC-10-30.
a. The maintenance consisted of removing the #2 ATC transponder, a mode S transponder, and replacing it with another mode S transponder, pursuant to BoeingDC-I0 Aircraft Maintenance Manual section 34-54-03. b. The data, methods, techniques, and/or practices contained in Boeing Manual section 34-54-03 are not applicable to the #2 ATC mode Stransponder, inthatthe manual references removal and replacement ofamode A and/or Ctransponder. 5. MT approved for return to service N526MD when MT used data that was not applicable to modeS transponders, whichwere installed on N526MD. Count II 6. MT's Repair Station Manual states that MT's employee training is governed by MT's Training Program, Forms, andManual. 7. MT's Training Program Manual section 4.2 requires an employee assessment and/or training when anew process, method, material, tool, aircraft line maintenance, system, or component is introduced. 8. At the time MT mechanics performed maintenance on the articles listed in paragraphs 2(a) and 3(a), the MT mechanics had not been administered an employee assessment and/ortrainingto perform maintenance on aS mode transponder. Count III 9. MT's Training Program Manual section 4.2 requires MT to evaluate an employee through a writtentestto measure the effectiveness ofany training administered. 10. During July of 2010, MT administered "TCAS System" training to eight of MT's mechanics.11. Upon completion ofthe training, MT failed to administer a written test to measure the effectiveness ofthe "TCAS System" training. III. 12. By reason ofthe foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the following sections ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations:
a. Section 43.13(a) in that each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in 43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus orits equivalent acceptable to the Administrator. b. Section 145.201(c)(l) in that a certificated repair station may not approve for return to service any article unless the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration was performed in accordance with the applicable approved technical data or data acceptable to the FAA.
c. Section 145.207(a) in that a certificated repair station must prepare and follow a repair stationmanual acceptable to the FAA. 14. Pursuantto 49 U.S.C. Sections 46301(a)-(d), Respondent is subjectto a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000 for each ofthe violations alleged. 15. Under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, acivil penalty of$18,700 is appropriate. WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel respectfully requests thatthe Administrative Law Judge enter an orderthatRespondentbe assessed a civil penalty inthe amount of$18,700.

# ~~{~ day ofSeptember, 2014.

WILLIAMVINES Attorney Office ofthe Regional CounselPLEASE NOTE: Pursuantto Title 14 CFR Section 13.209(a), you arerequiredto file a written answer to this Complaint, or awrittenMotionto Dismissifappropriate, not laterthan 30 days afterthe date shown on the Certificate ofService whichfollows.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing Complainthas beenmailedthis date by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the following: Miami TechAircraft Maintenance, Inc. c/o Amasvido Rodriguez CEO 5200 NW 36th Street Building 862 Miami, Florida 33166 MiamiTechAircraft Maintenance, Inc. c/o Amasvido Rodriguez CEO P.O. Box 520657 Miami, Florida 33152-0657 Juan R. Serrano, Esq. Griffin & Serrano, P.A. Blackstone Building, Sixth Floor 707 Southeast 3'd Avenue FortLauderdale, Florida 33316 Hearing Docket Clerk FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2Wl000 WilburWright Building 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 

# IQcMfY11).z 

# eX
.fhr;vi._f)p

### LJ DONNAE.



### STANJ!Ef'~1 Legal Assistant Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

### SI:P 1 2 2014 Dated (original+ 1copy)U.S. Department

of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Southern Regional Office, AS0-7

P. 0. Box 20636 Atlanta, Georgia 30320-0636 OFFICIAL MAIL

\,

,._(")-·- **lll/111111111~** I Ill ... ;,. **,~1;_;;:o** 12-SEP **~:l~** ·F'H 15 1..

7014 1200 0001 5134 7969 Hearing Docket Clerk FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2W1000 Wilbur Wright Building
800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 1.-.Z'h'- **':~·.:;·•-**

**:2()!:'::~9i** ;Ill • ilul • lu it i l1l1 ••1'1 rfllfiJ d • 11; 1 • 1 • 1• df/J, IJijiJ 1 "1 i • I'