U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

WOOLPERT LLC 

Respondent 

FAA DOCKET NO. 2013EA250068 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

DMS NO. F AA-2015-0211 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

NOT YET ASSIGNED 

Hearing Date: NOT YET ASSIGNED 

Hearing Location: NOT YET ASSIGNED 

RECEIVED 

MAR 2 7 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO THE FAA'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR HEARING PURSUANT TO 14 C.F.R. § 13.16 

COMES NOW, Respondent, Woolpert LLC, by and through undersigned 

counsel pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.218, and hereby answers the FAA's Motion to 

Dismiss Respondent's Request for Hearing Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.16. 

In support thereof, Respondent states the following: 

BACKGROUND 

Procedural history 

This matter involves the issuance of a notice of proposed civil penalty (hereinafter 

"NO PCP") to Woolpert LLC ("Woolpert") by the Federal Aviation Administration 

("FAA'') on June 18, 2014, concerning an aerial survey flight that occurred on July 31, 

2013. See Exhibit 1. More specifically, the present case involves the FAA's 

unprecedented allegation that the non-essential, non-required portable electronic devices 
used for aerial surveying, and therefore, carried onboard the aircraft by Woolpert, 

rendered the aircraft unairworthy. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.16(f), not later than 30 days after receipt ofthe 

NO PCP, Woolpert requested a telephonic informal conference, which was held on 

August 6, 2014. Thereafter, on August 29,2014, Woolpert submitted additional 

information to the FAA, in writing, demonstrating that a violation of the regulations did 

not occur. 

To date, the FAA attorney has not agreed to withdraw the NO PCP, or otherwise 

issue a final notice of proposed civil penalty (hereinafter "FNPCP") pursuant to 14 

C.F.R. § 13.16(g). Therefore, since Woolpert has exhausted its administrative remedies, 

the only course of action remaining was to request a hearing pursuant to § 13.16(h), 

which Woolpert did on March 4, 2015. In response, the FAA filed the present motion to 

dismiss, requesting that Woolpert' s Request for Hearing pursuant to 14 C.F .R. § 13.16 be 

dismissed as untimely. 

Woo/pert 

Woolpert is a I 03 year-old design, geospatial and infrastructure management firm 

with a long and well-recognized history in mapping and aerial surveying. Woolpert 

excels in the collection of aerial imagery from manned, fixed-wing aircraft for the 

purpose of making highly accurate aerial maps for a broad range of clients and 

applications, including the U.S. Government. In order to collect aerial imagery, 

Woolpert utilizes portable electronic devices carried onboard its aircraft. 
The Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (NO PCP) 

The FAA's NOPCP alleges that on or about July 31,2013, Woolpert operated a 

Cessna 402B aircraft, on a flight from Eagle Creek Airpark (KEYE) in Indianapolis, IN, 

to Essex County (KCDW) in Caldwell, NJ, and that during the flight, solely by reason of 

carrying potable electronic devices onboard for aerial survey purposes: (i) the aircraft was 

"not in an airworthy condition" in violation of 14 C.F .R. § 91.7 (See Exhibit 1, 

Paragraphs 4 and (a)); (ii) Woolpert "performed maintenance, preventative maintenance, 

or alterations" in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.403(b) (See Exhibit l, Paragraphs 5 and (b)); 

(iii) Woolpert "operated an aircraft that had undergone maintenance, preventative 

maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration when it had not been approved for return to 

service" in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(l) (See Exhibit l, Paragraphs 6 and (c)); 

and (iv) Woolpert "operated an aircraft that had undergone maintenance, preventative 

maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration" when the required record entry had not been made 

in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(2) (See Exhibit l, Paragraphs 7 and (d)). All of the 

allegations concerning maintenance involve the alleged "installation" of portable 

electronic devices used for aerial survey. 

Summary of Woo/pert's Defense to the NO PCP 

Contrary to the FAA's allegations contained in the NO PCP, Woolpert did not 

maintain, perform preventive maintenance, or otherwise alter the subject aircraft with 

regard to the non-essential, non-required portable electronic devices that were merely 

carried onboard the aircraft. Therefore, no maintenance record entries were required 

pursuant to 14 C.F.R. part 43 or part 91. As such, the FAA's allegations are without 

basis in fact or law. 
With regard to the FAA's allegation that "Wool pert operated the aircraft when it 

was not in an airworthy condition" in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7 (See Exhibit 1, 

Paragraphs 4 and (a)), it is well settled that the term airworthiness is not defined in the 

regulations. However, the National Transportation Safety Board (hereinafter "NTSB" or 

the "Board") has established a two-part test to determine whether an aircraft is airworthy. 

Specifically, the Board has long held that the standard for airworthiness consists of two 

prongs: (1) whether the aircraft conforms to its type certificate and applicable 

Airworthiness Directives; and (2) whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation. 

Administrator v. Surratt and Walker, NTSB Order No. EA-5514 at 16-17 (2010) citing 

Administrator v. Doppes, 5 NTSB 50, 52 n.6 (1985); see also Administrator v. Anderson, 

NTSB Order No. EA-3976 at 2 (1993); Administrator v. Nielsen, NTSB Order No. EA3755 at 4 (1992); Administrator v. Copsey, 7 NTSB 1316, 1317 (1991 ). In the present 

case, since the portable electronic devices were merely carried onboard the aircraft, their 

presence did not affect (1) whether the aircraft conformed to its type certificate; or (2) 

whether the aircraft was in a condition for safe operation. Therefore, the aircraft was 

airworthy. As such, the FAA's allegations are without basis in fact or law. 

Lastly, it should be noted that since Woolpert was not operating the aircraft 

pursuant to an air carrier operating certificate, or under instrument flight rules (IFR), the 

portable electronic devices, which did not cause interference with the navigation or 

communication system of the aircraft, were permissible pursuant to 14 C.F .R. § 91.21 1

. 

1 § 91.21 Portable electronic devices. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any 

operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device 

on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft: 

(I) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; 

or 

(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR. 
Based upon the above, the FAA clearly lacks any substantial basis to continue the 

prosecution of this matter. None of the material facts concerning the NO PCP are in 

dispute. Furthermore, since the FAA's motion to dismiss Woolpert's hearing request is 

not supported by facts or law, it must be denied. 

Additional Information Demonstrating That a Violation 

o(the Regulations Did Not Occur 

On June 25, 2014, Woolpert submitted a written request for a telephonic informal 

conference in order to discuss the NO PCP with the agency attorney in accordance with 

14 C.F.R. § 13.16(f)(2)(iii). See Exhibit 2. Pursuant to Woolpert's request, a telephonic 

informal conference was held on August 6, 2014. See Exhibit 3. Thereafter, on August 

29, 2014, Wool pert submitted additional information, in writing, demonstrating that a 

violation of the regulations did not occur. See Exhibit 4. For a period of eight (8) months 

following the date during which the parties participated in an informal conference 

pursuant to§ 13.16(£)(2) (i.e., August 6, 2014), the agency attorney has still not agreed to 

withdraw the NO PCP or otherwise issue a FNPCP in accordance with§ 13.16(g). 

Since the pending civil penalty action continues to cause irreparable harm, 

Woolpert requested a hearing pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.16(h) on March 4, 2015. On 

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to-

(1) Portable voice recorders; 

(2) Hearing aids; 

(3) Heart pacemakers; 

(4) Electric shavers; or 

(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not 

cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is 

to be used. 

(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an 

operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(S) ofthis section shall be made 

by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other 

aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft. 

Emphasis added. 
March 17, 2014, the agency attorney filed the present motion seeking to dismiss 

Woolpert's Request for Hearing as untimely. 

Brie[ Note Regarding Age o[Case 

The allegations in this case date back approximately twenty (20) months to July 

31,2013. Since that time, the FAA issued the NO PCP; an informal conference was 

requested and held on August 6, 2014; Woolpert submitted written information to the 

agency attorney on August 29,2014, demonstrating that a violation of the regulations did 

not occur; and on March 4, 2015, Woolpert served a Request for Hearing ("Hearing 

Request") on both the FAA Hearing Docket and the FAA Eastern Regional Counsel. In 

response to Woolpert' s Hearing Request, the FAA filed a motion to dismiss requesting 

that the Hearing Request, made pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.16, be dismissed as untimely. 

The FAA's motion must be denied, because unless the agency attorney withdraws 

the NO PCP or otherwise issues a FNPCP, this pending civil penalty matter will continue 

indefmitely. As a result, Woolpert would be denied its constitutional right of due process 

concerning the present civil penalty action, which continues to cause undue prejudice and 

financial hardship. 

Clearly, such a result was never intended by the FAA's Rules of Practice for civil 

penalty proceedings (14 C.P.R. part 13). 

FAA Commitment to Fair and Expeditious Adjudication 

In 1988, when the FAA first published its new rules of practice for civil penalty 

proceedings, the agency emphasized its commitment to the rule of law and due process: 

The rules are intended to provide an appropriate level of procedural formality in 

civil penalty proceedings, focus attention on the rights of individuals subject to 

civil penalties, and ensure that due process is afforded those individuals during 

the civil penalty enforcement process. 
See 53 Fed. Reg. 34646 (Sept. 7, 1988). 

The FAA asserted that administrative civil penalty prosecution (in lieu of 

prosecution in the U.S. District Court) would "strengthen" the FAA's safety enforcement, 

because it allowed the FAA to avoid the "lengthy process" of referring cases to the U.S. 

Attorney. See 53 Fed. Reg, 34647 (Sept. 7, 1988). Thus, once an administrative civil 

penalty action was initiated, it was to proceed within a certain period of time, to provide 

both "effective" safety enforcement, and to protect the fundamental due process rights of 

respondents. !d. 

Two (2) years later, in 1990, the FAA emphasized and reiterated that all 

parties shared an interest in "effective and expeditious" adjudication, 55 Fed. Reg. 1511 

(April20, 1990), that was "fair" to all. See 55 Fed. Reg. 27549 (July 3, 1990). The FAA 

also reasserted its commitment to provide prompt safety enforcement proceedings and 

"timely adjudication" by adopting a two-year regulatory limitations period to "initiate a 

case." See 55 Fed. Reg. 27555 (July 3, 1990). 

In the present case, although the FAA has satisfied the two-year regulatory 

limitations period by serving the NO PCP on June 18, 2014, the agency has failed to act 

at all during the past seven (7) months following the informal conference. The pending 

civil penalty action, which alleges a violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations, 

directly related to Woolpert' s aerial survey business, continues to cause the company 

irreparable financial harm and undue prejudice in violation ofWoolpert's fundamental 

due process rights. 
Since the agency attorney has not yet agreed to either withdraw the NO PCP or 

otherwise issue a FNPCP pursuant to § 13.16(g), Woolpert timely filed its Hearing 

Request. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13 .218(f)(2)(i), the FAA may file a motion to dismiss a 

request for hearing instead of filing a complaint. The issue raised by the FAA's motion 

to dismiss in the present case is whether the Respondent filed a timely request for 

hearing. Based upon the documents and evidence in the record, the FAA has failed to 

prove that Wool pert did not timely file its Hearing Request. 

14 C.P.R.§ 13.16(g)(2) provides the following: 

Not later than 15 days after receipt of the final notice of proposed civil 

penalty, the person charged with a violation shall do one of the following--(i) 

Submit the amount of the proposed civil penalty or an agreed-upon amount ... or 

(ii) Request a hearing, in which case a complaint shall be filed with the hearing 

docket clerk. 

Emphasis added. 

Thus, pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13 .16(g)(2), the operative date for calculating the 

due date of any request for hearing is the date a respondent receives a FNPCP. See In re 

Ryan International Airlines, Inc., FAA-1999-5805, FAA Order No. 2000-2, at 4 (Feb. 3, 

2000). The FAA bears the burden of proof to show the date of receipt of the FNPCP. 14 

C.P.R.§ 13.224(b). 

ARGUMENT 

There is no evidence in the record demonstrating proof of when the Respondent 

received a FNPCP. In fact, the FAA never sent a FNPCP. This lack of evidence 

prohibits the FAA from initiating a calculation regarding the ultimate due date for the 
Hearing Request pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13 .16(g)(2)--the date of service of the FNPCP 

plus 15 days. It is also undisputed that Wool pert properly filed its Hearing Request on 

March4,2015,pursuantto 14C.F.R. § 13.16. 

When possible, cases should be decided on their merits. See In re Robert Harris, 

FAA-2002-14236, Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge (Aug. 27, 2003) (citing In 

re Larry's Flying Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 98-4 at 7 (March 12, 1998) and Safety 

Equipment and Sign Co., Ltd., FAA Order No. 92-76 at 5 (December 21, 1992)). 

Based upon the record, it is not necessary to determine whether the Respondent 

had good cause for filing its Hearing Request on March 4, 2015, prior to receipt of a 

FNPCP. The calculation of the 15 days of time does not begin until the date the 

Respondent actually receives a FNPCP. In this case, the FAA has failed to prove, by 

preponderance of the evidence, that Wool pert ever received a FNPCP. 

Assuming arguendo that Respondent's Hearing Request was untimely, then it 

must be dismissed unless good cause is shown. Carl P. Langton, FAA Order No. 93-12 

(March 25, 1993), p. 6. In this case, the record clearly shows that good cause existed for 

Wool pert to file its Hearing Request on March 4, 2015-it was filed nearly 8 months 

after issuance of the NO PCP, since no FNPCP was ever issued. During that 8-month 

period, Respondent's counsel was waiting for the agency attorney to either withdraw the 

NOPCP, or otherwise issue aFNPCP in accordance with§ 13.16(g). 

Following the informal conference on August 6, 2014 (Exhibit 3), and additional 

information submitted by Wool pert on August 29, 2014 (Exhibit 4 ), agency counsel sent 

an email to Respondent's counsel on September 5, 2014, stating that "I reviewed your 

letter with flight standards and our opinion on the case is still the same. Do you have a 
settlement offer to make? If not, I'll proceed with issuing the final notice." [i.e., FNPCP] 

See Exhibit 6. 

Although Respondent's counsel did not "have a settlement offer to make" as 

requested in the email, agency counsel never proceeded "with issuing the final notice" as 

he suggested. Nevertheless, undersigned counsel contacted the FAA attorney by email 

on January 16, February 6, February 17, February 23, and February 27, 2015, regarding 

status of civil penalty action. In response, by email dated February 27,2015, agency 

counsel stated that "we haven't made a decision" regarding withdrawal of the alleged 

violations. See Exhibit 6. Accordingly, on March 4, 2015, Respondent filed its Hearing 

Request pursuant to § 13 .16. 

Therefore, assuming arguendo that Respondent's Hearing Request was untimely, 

good cause has been shown. As a result, the Hearing Request should not be dismissed. 

See Carl P. Langton, FAA Order No. 93-12 (March 25, 1993), p. 6. 

1. PURSUANT TO 14 C.F.R. § 13.16(f)(2)(iii), WOOLPERT TIMELY 

SUBMITTED A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR AN INFORMAL 

CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH THE AGENCY 

ATTORNEY. 

On or about June 18,2014, the FAA issued the NO PCP to Woolpert alleging a 

violation of 14 C.P.R.§§ 91.7, 91.403(b), 91.407(a)(l), and 91.407(a)(2), which sought a 

civil penalty in the amount of$7,000. See Exhibit 1. Along with the NO PCP, the FAA 

provided a document entitled "Information Regarding Civil Penalties under Title 49 

US. C. Section 46301" (hereinafter "the Information document"). See Exhibit 1. 

Specifically, the Information document states the following in relevant part: 

WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER WOOLPERT RECEIVES THE NOTICE 

TO WHICH TillS INFORMATION SHEET IS ATTACHED, Woolpert may 

elect to proceed in one or more of the following ways by marking the appropriate 
box( es) on the attached election sheet and returning it by mail or personaldelivery to the address provided below. An explanation of each option is set forth 

below. 

Emphasis in original. 

Furthermore, the Information document provides an explanation of options in six 

(6) numbered paragraphs. Specifically, paragraph numbered 6 states the following: 

6. Woolpert may request an opportunity to discuss the matter with an FAA 

attorney by a telephonic informal conference, or at an in-person informal 

conference at one of the following locations: an FAA regional office; the FAA 

Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City; or FAA Headquarters in Washington, 

D. C. A list of the addresses of these offices (hereinafter refereed to as "the 

Informal Conference Location list" or "the list") is attached to the enclosed reply 

form. 

Emphasis added. 

Further down the page, below paragraph number 6 of the Information document, 

the following is stated: 

If Wool pert requests an informal conference with an FAA attorney, do not also 

request at this time a formal hearing under 14 C.F.R. § 13.16, i.e., option 8. 

Woolpert's request for an informal conference will not affect its right to 

request a formal hearing later. 

Emphasis added. 

Clearly, the FAA advised Woolpert that if it requested an informal conference 

with an FAA attorney within 30 days after receiving the NO PCP, Woolpert must "not 

also request" a "formal hearing under 14 C.F.R. § 13.16." Furthermore, the FAA 

explicitly stated that "Woolpert's request for an informal conference will not affect its 

right to request a formal hearing later." 

Accordingly, on June 25,2014, Respondent, by and through undersigned counsel, 

submitted a written request for an informal conference to discuss the matter with the 

agency attorney pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.16(f)(2)(iii). See Exhibit 2. 
As such, according to the FAA's own written admission contained within the 

Information document attached to the NO PCP (Exhibit 1), Woolpert's request for an 

informal conference on June 25,2014, did not affect its right to request a formal hearing 

on March 4, 2015. Therefore, the FAA's disingenuous motion to dismiss Woolpert's 

Hearing Request is not supported by facts or law, and as a result, must be denied. 

2. PURSUANT TO 14 C.F.R. § 13.16(h), WOOLPERT TIMELY 

REQUESTED A HEARING. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.16(f), entitled Notice of proposed civil penalty, states the following 

in relevant part: 

(f) Notice of proposed civil penalty. A civil penalty action is initiated 

by sending a notice of proposed civil penalty to the person charged 

with a violation or to the agent for services for the person under 49 

U.S.C. 46103. A notice of proposed civil penalty will be sent to the 

individual charged with a violation or to the president of the 

corporation or company charged with a violation. In response to a 

notice of proposed civil penalty, a corporation or company may 

designate in writing another person to receive documents in that 

civil penalty action. The notice of proposed civil penalty contains a 

statement of the charges and the amount of the proposed civil 

penalty. Not later than 30 days after receipt ofthe notice of 

proposed civil penalty, the person charged with a violation 

shall-

(1) Submit the amount of the proposed civil penalty or an agreed-upon 

amount, in which case either an order assessing civil penalty or 

compromise order shall be issued in that amount; 

(2) Submit to the agency attorney one ofthe following: 

(i) Written information, including documents and witness 

statements, demonstrating that a violation of the regulations 

did not occur or that a penalty or the amount of the penalty is 

not warranted by the circumstances. 

(ii) A written request to reduce the proposed civil penalty, the 

amount of reduction, and the reasons and any documents 

supporting a reduction of the proposed civil penalty, including 

records indicating a financial inability to pay or records showing 
that payment of the proposed civil penalty would prevent the 

person from continuing in business. 

(iii) A written request for an informal conference to discuss the 

matter with the agency attorney and to submit relevant 

information or documents; or 

(3) Request a hearing, in which case a complaint shall be filed with the 

hearing docket clerk. 

Emphasis added. 

Pursuant the regulatory language contained within 14 C.P.R.§ 13.16(f), not later 

than 30 days after receipt of the notice of proposed civil penalty, Woolpert was required 

to either: (1) submit the amount of the proposed civil penalty or an agreed-upon amount; 

or (2) submit to the agency attorney one of the following: (i) Written information 

demonstrating that a violation of the regulations did not occur or that a penalty or the 

amount of the penalty is not warranted by the circumstances; (ii) A written request to 

reduce the proposed civil penalty; (iii) A written request for an informal conference to 

discuss the matter with the agency attorney and to submit relevant information or 

documents; or (3) Request a hearing. 

Accordingly, since Woolpert submitted a written request for an informal 

conference to discuss the matter with the agency attorney and also submitted relevant 

information or documents pursuant to§ 13.16(£)(2), Wool pert timely complied with the 

requirements of§ 13 .16. However, the FAA has refused to either withdraw the NO PCP 

or otherwise issue a FNPCP in accordance with § 13 .16(g)(1 )(ii), which states the 

following: 
(1) A final notice of proposed civil penalty may be issued-

(ii) If the parties participated in any informal procedures under paragraph 

(f)(2) of this section and the parties have not agreed to compromise the 

action or the agency attorney has not agreed to withdraw the notice of 

proposed civil penalty. 

In the present case, the record establishes that the parties participated in informal 

procedures under paragraph§ 13.16 (f)(2) on August 6, 2014, and the parties have not 

agreed to compromise the action. Furthermore, the agency attorney has not agreed to 

withdraw the notice of proposed civil penalty. As a result, since the FAA has refused to 

issue a FNPCP pursuant to § 13.16(g), Woolpert timely requested a hearing pursuant to§ 

13.16(h), which states the following: 

(h) Request for a hearing. Any person charged with a violation may request a 

hearing, pursuant to paragraph (f)(3) or paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section, to be 

conducted in accordance with the procedures in subpart G of this part. A person 

requesting a hearing shall file a written request for a hearing with the hearing 

docket clerk, using the appropriate address set forth in §13.210(a) of this part, and 

shall mail a copy of the request to the agency attorney. The request for a hearing 

may be in the form of a letter but must be dated and signed by the person 

requesting a hearing. The request for a hearing may be typewritten or may be 

legibly handwritten. 

Therefore, since Woolpert timely filed its Hearing Request on March 4, 2015 (See 

Exhibit 5), the FAA's motion to dismiss Woolpert's Hearing Request is not supported by 

facts or law and must be denied. 

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Respondent, Woolpert LLC, by and 

through undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully requests that the FAA's Motion to 

Dismiss Respondent's Request for Hearing Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.16 be denied. 
Dated: March 25,2015 

GRE;:GORY . WINTON, ESQ. 

Tht Aviation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, Maryland 21401 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (866) 568-9886 

Attorney for Respondent 
Exhibit 1 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

JllN 18 Z014 

Eastern Region 

Regional Counsel 

Telephone: 718 553-3266 

Facsimile; 718 995-5699 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

CERTIFIED MAIL • RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED. AND REGULAR MAIL 

Woolpert LLC 

5 Falcon Drive 

Suite 102 

Peachtree, GA 30269 

Docket No. 2013EA250068 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY. 

TAKE NOTICE, that this oftice bas received an investigative report from which it appears 

that Woolpert, LLC violated the Federal Aviation Regulations by reason of the foliowing: 

1. At all times relevant herein, Wool pert, LLC (hereinafter "Woolpert"), owned 

and operated a Cessna 402B aircraft, identification number N3MZ 

(hereinafter "the aircraft"). 

2. On or about July 31, 2013, Woolpert operated the aircraft on a t1ight from 

Eagle Creek Airpark (KEYE) in Indianapolis, IN, to Essex County (KCDW) 

in Caldwell, NJ. 

3. During th0 above-described flight, the follo>ving items were installed on the 

aircraft without the required FAA approvals and maintenance/alteration 

entries: 

a. Leica Computer Processor Unit, model SC70 

b. Lei.ca camera controller, model ALS CCI 05 

c. Leica operation controller, model OC52 

d. Leica camera, model RC30 

e. Lidar scanner, model LS70·LP 

t: Power Bright 400-watt power inverter, model ML400-24 
4. By reason of the above, Woolpert operated the aircraft when it was not in an 

ainvorthy condition. 

5. Woolpert thus, as O\'i1ler or operator of the aircraft, performed maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, or alterations on the aircraft other than as prescribed 

in this subpart and other applicable regulations, including part 43 of this 

chapter. 

6. Woolpert thus, as owner or operator the aircraft, operated an aircraft that 

had undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration 

when it had not been approved for retum to service by a person authorized 

under Section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

7. Woolpert thus, as uwner or operator of the aircraft, operated an aircraft that 

had undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration 

when the maintenance record entry required by Sections 43.9 or 43.11, as 

applicable, of the Federal Aviation Regulations had not been made. 

By reason of the foregoing, Woolpert violated the follov.ing section(s) of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations: 

a. Section 9l.7(a), which states that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless 

it is in an airworthy condition. 

b. Section91.403(b), which states that no person may perform maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, or alterations on an aircraft other than as prescribed in 

this subpart and other applicable regulations, including part 43 of this chapter. 

c. Section 9l.407(a)(l), which states that no person may operate an aircraft that 

has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration 

unless it has been approved for retmn to service by a person authorized under 

Section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

d. Section 91.407(a)(2), which states that no person may operate an aircraft that 

has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration 

1.m!ess the maintenance record entry required by Sections 43.9 or 43.11, as 

applicable, of the Federal Aviation Regulations has been made. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 4630l(a)(5)(A), Woolpert is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed 

$11,000 for each violation of the regulation(s). After revie>ving all of the information 

2 
contained in our investigative file, we propose to assess a civil penalty in the amount of 

$7,000 for these violations. 

Enclosed is infonnation on Woolpert's options in responding to this Notice. The options 

include participating in an infonnal conference with an FAA attorney and submitting 

information to the FAA for consideration. Wool pert must submit, in writing, its choice of 

the alternatives explained on the enclosed infom1ation fonn on or before thirty (30) clays 

after it receives this Notice. If Wool pert fails to submit its choice within that time, it \Viii 

have no fi1rther right to participate in the informal procedures. 

Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Dan Kohlmeyer 

Attomey 

Enclosure 

lnformation Sheet 

Option Selection Form 

Informal Conference Location List 

3 
INFORi\lATlON REGAR.DJNG CIVIL PENALTIES UNDER TITLE -~9 C.S.C SECTION ·16301 

Under 49 U,S.C. § 4630 I, ony person who violates pertinent provisions of 49 U.S.C. §~ 40\{) I. £!_g;;g., or any rule. regulation. or order issued ther~:undcc is 

subject to a civil penally for each violation. The m:tximum assessment for each- violation is also prescribed by law. as specified in the notice to which this is 

mtac-hed. The t1otice <liso states the amount of the propos-;:d civil penalty for the alkgcJ \'iolation{s). 

This proceeding is gon:mcd by the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Sd 1t.1rth in 14 CF.R. * 13.16 .and 14 C.F.R. \)art 13, Subpart G. Copies of these 

regulations <ue cndosed. WITHfN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER WOOL PERT RECEIVES THE t-:OTICE TO WHICJI 11HS INFORMATION SHEET IS 

ATTACHED, Woolpcn may elect to proceed in one or more of the following wnys by marki11g the appropriate box(c:·f) on the attachcd election sheet and 

returning it by mail or pcrsonai~Uclivcry to the address: provided below. An explanation of each option is set forth bclmv. 

I, Wool pert mny submit the amount of the civil penalty specitied in thl! notice by certified check or monoy order payable to the ''Fedl!rJ.ll Aviation Administration'' 

to the Offic~ of Accounting F:\NMMAC- Anenlion AMZ-310-EA Posl Oflice l3ox 25i70, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. 

2. In the alternative, Wnolpert nwy pay ils ch'il penally with :t credit c;1rd over the Internet. ·ro pay elccti'Onically, visit the web site :lt 

http:/Jwww.pav.gnv am.l cnler th1..• tenn 'FEA'' iu the search b:lr l:tbclcd "Search Public Fnrmsn located on the left band side of the s.crecn. Afte1· 

foJIQwing the linl-, click ou "1<',\A Civil Penallies-FAA Eastern Rl'gi<lrl." \Voolpcrt mu)lt then enter the nhovc~lis.trd "Ilocli:et l'umbN·" under till' ''Civil 

Prntalties Case Number" and Woolpcrt must thcu COIIlJ>lete the J·cnmindt~r of the requested infnnnation. Once Woolpcrt has submHtcll the requested 

infonnntion WoolpCt't will he· taken to :1 p;1gc whil:h allows Woolpert t-o either pay by electronic transfer. Ol' by credit card. FiU in the n~tJUCstl'd 

information in One of1hese two s~·ctions, nnd submit to complete your Jlaymcnt 

SUBM!TriNG THE AMOUNT OF CIVIL PENALTY IN ACCORDANCE W!Tll PARAGRAPHS I AND 2 CONSTITUTES Woolpert'S AGREEMENTT!IAT 

AN ORDER ASSESSING CIVIL PENALTY IN THAT AMOUNT MAY BE ISSUED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE, SUBMITTING rHE AMOUNT OF 

CIVIL PENALTY ALSO CONSTITUTES Woolpcn·s AGREEMENT Til AT IT WAIVES ITS RIGHT TO A IIEARI>JG IN TI·IIS MAHER. 

~. \Voolpcrt may submit in writing. infonnntion and evidence denlOO»trating that a violation of the regulations wa.o; Mt committed or thui. if it were. the filt.':ts and 

circumstances do not warmm the proposed civil penalty. lnfonnation provide<! will he COllshlcrcd in determining whcth~r a.dvil pcualty should be assessed or 

impos~:d and the amount of any such civil pcnnlty, ll1is inform:nilm 1111"1)' b<: submi1tcd in conjunction with a rc.que:;t tl.1r rut informal·confcrcncc-under paragraph 

6. Choosing this option will not atlCct \Voolpert':s rig.bt to u hearing_, unles-s it also ~:le-cts paragraph 5. 

4. Woolpett may submit, in \\riting, infomwtion and rccords indicating that it is linanclally unahk to pny the proposed civil PCTHllty, ()f showing lhat payment of 

!he propm.ed penalty would prcvenl Woolpcrl from cominu!ng -in htlsin(.;'SS. Choosing this option will not affect Woolpcn's right ton. h.;aring, unless it also ~kcts 

paragraph 5. 

5. Wonlpert tllay rcl(ucst thal a civil penlllty be as~es:scd in a s.pedlic amount other than that proposed in tbe notice. lfWoolpcrt chooses ibis option, it silould 

... ~:-.:plain why n reduction in-the civil pt--nalty is npproprilltG, and provide :my suppLlrling Uocument:~tion. The int\mnation Wool pert provides will be ~onsidcrcd in 

dct~nni11ing whether thl;) amount it specified should be asscs:;cd. If lhc FAA accepts Wool pert's offer. this request con::>titutcs \Voulperl'.s ngrcement that ntl ortkr 

assessing civil penalty in that amount may be issued without further notice. \VOOLPERT'S REQUEST ALSO CONSTITUTES lTS AGREEMENT THAT rr 

WAIVES ITS RIGHT TO A HEARING. IF THE FAA DOES NOT ACCEPT WOOLPI'RT'S OFFER, 110\\'EVER, ITS RK;HT TO A Hl'ARlNG WILL NOT 

OE AfFECTED, 

6. Wool pert mny request nn opportu11ity to lli:::.cuss the math:r with an FAA :attornl!y by a tdcphonic inlimnal con!Cn:ncc, or m un in-person informal conference 

nt OtN (Jf the following loc<Jtions: un FAA regional uffi<::c: the FAA /wronmrtical Ccntcrin Oklahoma Cily; or FAA Headquarters in \Vashington. DC. A list of tl1c 

addresses ofll1cs:c ol1iccs {hen:afienctC:rred tom; ·'the lniOrm:al Conference Location tisC or ''the lise) is attached to the enclosed reply 1~)1'111. 

A request tOr an in~pcrson infOrmal conll!rcnce at any (Jf the oflkes: on the lllf1lfl1lal Confen:ncc Location list will b~.: grnnwd, rcgan.llc.<is of whcthc:r the office 

Wool pert's chooses is the uffict: that issut:d the nollcc t(l which this inlbrmo.tion sheet i~ altacht:d. 

If \Voolpcn dwosl!s an ot1ic-e \m the lnfomltil Conli.:n:m:e Loc:uion list other than the ofticc that issued the notice. the case ordinarily will be tmnslCrrc:d to the: 

offi~ Woolpcrt requests for full disposition and IHliHI!ing ill accordance with the FAA's existing tranSI"i.:r p<}licy. which is set forth in paragraph 20&(c) or FAA 

Order No. -2l50-3A. provided thar (1) a transfer is in the public intcrC1il .. and (2) the trans:!Cr is to an ol1ke more c\mvcnicnt to its domi:cii~J or principii\ plncc- or 

business. 

When condltions-(1) and (2) ;-ue not prc~cnt th¢ case wi11 be tr.:mstl:rrcd to the olli.ce Wootpcrt rl!qucsts t\.rr purpose:; ofU1e inthnnal conference only, Moreover, 

the omcc receiving the C<.ISC only for purposes: of the inlhm1al contCrcncc will consult and coordinate wl1h the office thal iss.ned the notico before settling or 

nthcrwb;c disposing of the case after tile infonllal conference, 

\Voolpcrt also may request nn in-person infonnal co11fcrcncc at an FAA ollkc mhcr than tho::>e on the Informal Conkrcnce Location list. If \Voolpert does so, it 

should indicate on the response form its n:ason tbr requl."!sting tlmt pnrticul:Ir location. NOTE: Rcqucs1s for in-person infom1als at locations not on the lis1 will be 

granted only in very limited circumstances" \Vo()lpert should not, therefore: expect to have an in-person in10rmul conf(:rcncc at a location other than those on the 

list The FAA attorney assit!ncd to this cas-e ha.-; disct-ctilll1 to grmlt ·~ reqw:st fbr an in-p-cr~on lntOrmnl confl!rcnccs at a loc.mion other than those on the list only 

when {1) because of u.nusmd circumstanc~s: the public intCfi.)St is better strv~d by holding an in•pcrson iniOm1al conference nt such lm;atlon. or t2} an in-person 

inli:.lrmul con terence c-Jn bl;' sdtt:duh:d to coincide-with other previously scbcdulcd bnslne:s~ :ttthe loc-mion rcqucstl.'d. ln additiml, llte FAA attorney must b~ able 

to schedule the conference within il\lproxinw.tc!y 90 ·days of the date Woolpl!rt requests utt informul conkrcnce. B\.'causc or these restrictions, Woolpcrt is 

reqt~e."tcd to indicate both the FAA orncc h pn.:ll:-rs and onl! oft he offices rrom dw Informal Conference Location list 

T~) dec\ :1 tdcphone lilfon11al confcrcrK~ .. choo$C option 6.::1. on the reply form. To ch:ct .an in~p~rson infOrmal conli..'n:ncc at one or the lm:tttions on the lit formal 

Confcn..'ltcc Location list. choose option 6.b. To elect an in-person inl'ormal conli::rcnce at a \ocaliOll other than those 011 th.: list. choosl.' oplloll 6-.c. 

If Woolpcn requests an inlbnnnlmnlt'I\.'IH.'t' with an FAA nttomcy, d{) not nl.so r>Cque.sl<.lt this tlmc a fOrmal heuring. under l4 C.F.R. * 13J6. l.c._ option 8, 

\Voolpcrt's n:qu~s.t for :m infonm1l confc-rcllt.::C will 1101 :Meet its right to n:qliCSt a fomtal ht:aring later. 

IMPORT;\NT: The i11tbrmal conference is intended to provide Woolpcrt with an oppurtunity to pn:sc111 hs reasons why the FAA should not proc.ecll \vith the 

action as proposed. It nbo is intemled to provide \Voolpcrt wi!J1 tm opportunity to pret.cnt any suppNting documctHtltkm or ini\.Jrmation it.s wishe-S the FAA !O 

consider befOre the agency decides whcthi.':r to proceed with the proposeJ action, 1\ny additional infOrmation Woolpert ::;ubmits will be giYcn 0\lr careful 
consiJeratim1. Since the attached letter may become a part of the publicly avallabk r~conls, Woolp..:rt may wish to submit u kltCor whi~h would be inclmkd in 

these records. 

7. \Voolperl may request that the FAA impose a ci\·il penalty without making 11ndings or violations, ;;\lld submit tl1c reasons and any additional in!brmatiotJ in 

writing (\•>ith appropriate supporting documentation) to support \Voulpcrt 's n:qucst. If the FAA accepts Wool pert's otTer, this request -,viii constiMc W11olpcrrs 

agreement that a Compromis.e Order in that amount may be Issued. WOOLPER'J .. S REQU!:ST \VILL AI ,SO COl'\STlTUTE ITS AOREEMf:NT THAT lT 

WAIVES ITS RIGHT TO A HEARING. IF THE fA~ DOES NOT ACCEPT \VOOLPERl'S OFFER. HOWEVER. ITS RIGHT TO A HEARING WILL 1-:0T 

BE AFFECTED. 

8. Wuotpert may request a hearing in accordance with section 13.16 of the FAR . Woolpert"s rcquest!TH)st be dated and sig11Cd. \[ Wuolpcrt request:> a hearing, 

a Complairn will be filed <lnd an administrative- law Judge will bi,": appointed to deck!~ tile cnsc. At the hearing, held under Subpan G of 14 C.F.R. Pan 13. the 

agency will present witncssts -and other evidence, Woolpert also will have the oppprtunity tO- pre~cilt witnesses and other evidence. The FAA will have the 

burden of proot: At the conclus-ion of the hc~Lring, a!! issm:s. of fact and law will be dccidcd and a decision will b<: rendered whether, and ill what amount, a civil 

penalty will be assessed. If either party. the agency or Wool pert is dissatisfii!tl with the judge's decision, tl1at party cnn ap]Xal the judge's decision to the FA:\ 

dccisionmaker. lf Woolpc1t is dissatisfied with th¢ FA.>\ d~clsimm\akcr':. J~ci:.;ion. \Voolpert may seck review of the FAA dcci'>ionnmkcr's decision in !lie 

Utlited States Couns of Appeals. 

\Vooip-ert's request lOr a hearing must be mudc to the Hearing Docket, Federal Avimion Admini$tnttl(\tt 800 lnJepcnd<.:ncc Avenue, SW., Room 924A. 

Washington. DC. 20591. Attention: Hearing_ Dock~t Ckrk Woolpcrt must mail a copy w the FAA tttlonK·y handlin).:! t]\fs ca<>c ut the- nddl\:55 indicated hdow. 

All conesponde!lCC in this matter 5hnukl bt: forwarded to the Office of the R..:giom1l Counsel Federal AviatiorJ Administrntion I Aviation Plaza Jam:1h.:a. NY 11434 

Woo!pcrt's response to the Notice or Proposed Civil Penalty may be dcliv~rcd pcrsnna!iy to the Ofilcc oflhc Rcglooal Co11n5d tOr the En~1i.'tn Region atlil~ 

above address during nomml business hours. 

Te-lc('lbOn<:: 718 553~3266 (Collect calls: cunnot be acc.:ptcdJ 

2 
, Of11ce orihc Regional Counsel 

Fcdcral Avintion Administration 

I A vkuiml Plaza 

Jamaica. NY t 1434 

Date 

\Vnolp~rt- 2013Et\250068 

Subjt:ct: ~otice of Prop.oscd Civil Penalty 

In r~ly to your Notice of Propost::d Ci\-il!,aJalty, Wool )Crt el-ects to )rocceU a:; indi-cated by my check mark besid-e the numbcn.:d p:.mt!!ntph(S) below: 

1. ( l \Voolpi:rt hereby submiL'> 

the amount ofthc proposed ~,;ivil 

penalty with the tmdcrstanding 

that an order assessing a civil 

penalty wlll be lssucd in thm 

ammmt without further notice. 

Woolpcrt UNDERSTANDS 

THAT IT liAS WAIVED ITS 

RIGHT TO A HEARING. 

2. I 1 Woolpert. has paid the 

proposed civil penalty with u 

credit cnrd over the Intcmct m the 

following website~ 

http://www.pav.gm' 

Woolpcrt also undcrst:mds that 

an order assessing civil penalty 

will he issued in th<.) amount 

without further n0ticc. 

Woolpcn ALSO 

UNDERSTANDS THAT IT 

WAIVES ITS RIGHT TO A 

llEARitXG. 

6.a, I 1 Wo<>lpcrt herehy requests a telephonic intbmtal conG:rertcc 

to discuss this matter with an FAA attorney. (An aMrncy will call 

Woolpcrt at the tclepilonc number it pr-ovides here; ( L---~-· 

Woolpcrt ·will be provided at least 2 weeks IHlvnncc tloiicc or the date 

and time ofthls conf~ren\!c.) 1'\0TE: If Woolpl!rt chooses to discu:>S 

this- matter infonnally by tclcphonu, il should provide ttny documents 

or other information it wishes to have cons.idcn.:d on its behalf before 

the date ofth_c infonmd C(tnferencc. 

b. l] Wool pert hereby requests an in-per.so11 in!Ormal conlhencc 

"1th an F,\A aUorncy lo tliscuss thts muth:r at~-··------­

(.chOoS,c a1\ FAA oflkc from the attachcd...ll.ill. 

c. [ 1 Wool pert hereby requests an in-person informal coniCrence 

\\'ilh an fAA atto.rney to discuss Lhis maHer at 

-,---,;c~----:::-:;:-c--;c . Wool pe-rt is rt:questing an in-pcrsm1 informal 

cont~rcncc at this location bl!causc 

--·~--~-----···~-.------.. ----· Woolpc-n has 

also imficntcd an alternate loc<Jlion from thl.' attached list under item 

6.b, in the event the FAA is tillable 1\l grant my rcqut"stundcrthis 

option. 

Signature: 

1\mnc-; 

Addn.•-ss: 

Telephone: 

Date: 

Cu.,;;c No.: 2013 EA250068 

3. [ } WooiJ1Crt hereby 

submits evidence anJ 

information. 

Ocmonstroting th~11 a 

violation of the 

regulations did not occur 

us alleged or that the 

amount oft hi.': penalty is 

not warranted by the 

circumstances. 

7. [ ] \Voolpt:rt hereby 

requestS lhnt the FAA 

impow r1 civfl penalty 

without making finding.'> 

of,riolations, and 

submits its reasons. Tlfis 

request constitutes 

\Voolpert's agreement 

that lfthis offer i:.: 

accepted. a cQmprt'~mis-e 

order will he issllL-d in 

the mnoum sci fOrth in 

the Nolicc of Proposed 

Civil Penalty. THIS 

REQUEST ALSO 

CONSTITUTES 

WOOLPERTS 

AGREEMENT THAT IF 

TillS OH'ER IS 

ACCEPTED, IT liAS 

WAIVE]) ITS RIGllT 

TO A HEARING. 

4, [ ·1 Woolpert hereby 

submits information and 

rcconJs showi1tg that it is 

linanciully llntlble to pay 

Lhc proposed civil 

penalty. or that JX1)1tlCnt 

Qfthc penalty would 

prevent it timn 

continuing in business. 

S, f 1 Woolpcrt hereby 

requests that tile 

propos¢d civil penalty be 

us::.csscd il1 the amomlt 

of$ and it 

submils the rca~ons lOr 

thc.rcduction of the 

pwpos.cd ;unounL This 

request COflstiiutcs 

Woolpen's agrcelll\llll 

that if this ofrc-r is 

i!CCliHCd by the FAA. an 

order assessing. civil 

penalty in the amoutJt it 

has specified muy be 

issued without further 

notice. TillS REQUEST 

ALSO CONSTITUTES 

Wool perfS 

AGREEt.;IENT THAT IT 

HAS WAIVED lTS 

RIGHT TOA 

llcARING. 

8. 1 1 Wootpert hereby requests a hearing in 

accordance with Subpart 0 of Part \3 of the Fcdl':ntl 

Avintion Reg11l111ions { 14 CPR 13. Subp11rt 0) \\·ltb 

thl.': un<krstaJi<Jing. that a Complaint will be fikd. 

\Voo-lpert rl.':quc~ts that the hearing be hdd in 

___ -·-.. --~·---· Wool pert is sending 

this rcltuest holh to the FAA attomcy and to the 

Heuring Docket, FcdcraJ Aviation Admini.;;tration. 

800 lndcpendem:c Avenue. SW .. Rm)nl 924A. 

Wm;hingtNl, DC. 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket 

Ch:rk, 

r·l Woolpcrt request~ that llttun: doctunents in this case be sent to its 

representative: 

]\.';mlc: 

i\ddress:: 

T.:l<:phone: 
A.:ltO~ACTICIL CE!"TER 

Fed~:ral Aviation Administration 

FAA LEGAL COlii'OSF.L OFFICE LOCATIO:'>S 

FOR I~FOJntiL COWEJU:~CES 

ALASKA RF.GIO:'> 

Federal Aviatk1n Adn1inistrJtion 

Office ul"thc Regional Counsel (A;>.K~7) Room 251 Oflict' ofthl.) Rcgiont~l Counsct (AAL~7) 

Mike lvtonront:y Ai:ronuutical Center Alaskan Region llcadquancrs 

6500 South f...tacArthur Bm1lcvan.l 212 West 7th Avenue 

Okluhoma City, OK 73125 Anchorage, AK 99513 

EASTE!l~ REGION GREAT LAKES REGIO~ 

fedcml Avicltion Adminlstr<UioJl Fcdenil Aviation Administration 

O!licc of the Regional Coun:>d tAEA-7) Office oft11c Regional Counscl(J\GL·7) 

Eush.·rn Region Hcndquartcrs Orcm Lakes Region Headqumtcrs 

] Aviation Plan1 O'Hare Lak.;: ()Jlice CCnt<,!r, Room •ll9 

Room 559 2300 E:ast Devon Avenue 

Jamaica. NY I 143-1 Des Plaines. JL 600!8 

NOilTilWt:ST MOliNTAINREGION SOliTHf:RN REGION 

Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Administration 

Office ofthr.: Region<~! Counsd (A"'M· 7) Office of the Regional Counsel tAS0-7) 

Northwest Mountain Region Heai.lquartcrs Somhcm Region J-Jeadquartcrs 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW. 170 I Cohunbia A venue, Room 530 

Renton. \VA 98055-405-6 Co-llege Pnrk. GA 30337 

WESTER'l-I'ACI FTC RECIO:\ F,\,\ liEAilQl'AilTERS 

Federal Aviation Administration Feckml1\viation Administnttiun 

Oll:icc oftl1c Regional Counsel (AWP·7} OOice of the Chief Counsel 

\Vcstcm~Pucilic Regionlleadquarter~ 800 Indept!niJcnce-Avcnue. SW. 

15000 Aviation Boulevard Washington. DC 20591 

llnwthornl.'. Ci\ 90261 

2 

CEr>TRAL 1\F.G!O"' 

Fctkml Aviati\111 Administration 

Oflicl! of the Regional Counsel {ACE-7) 

Central Reg.hm lleadtllltlrter:; 

901 Lc1cUsl Room 506 

Kansns City. MO 64106-2641 

NEW E:\GL\Nil REGION 

rcdcral Aviatiorl Admtnistratinn 

Oflicl.! of the Regional Counsel 

(ANE~i) 

New t::ngland Region H~adquartL>rs 

12 Nc\Y Englmld Executive Park, Room 311 

BurliTH?.ton. l\-IA 01803 

SOUTHWEST RF.GIO:'\ 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Ollicc ofth.: R~gional Counsd (ASW·7) 

SoHthwcst Region 1-lcndquaru:rs 

260 I ~4-cachmn Boulevard 

Ft. Worth, TX 76193-0007 

El!ROPE, AFRICA & )JlllDLf: EAST 

FAN American Emtmssy 

Office of the Assistant CbiefC-ouns~l 

(,.A •. EU~ 7) 

27 Blvd. du Regent, Hrusscb, Belgium 

(tOr mailing lfom U.S.~PSC 32, Box 002, i-\PO 

:\E 097101 
Exhibit 2 
THE AVIATION LAW FIRM 

j 997 ANNAPOLIS EXCHANGE PARKWAY 

SUITE 300 

ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 

1~877"4~AIR~LAW • 301·294·8550 

866-568-9886 FAX 

30 1 ~2_94-2525 Fi\X 

WWW.THEAVlAT!OJ'.!LAWF!RM.cOM 

CHr.-::.o~~ S Wi'I.,.O,'I. f.OQ 

All~11f£D 14 MD, ~l'l', PA, C1. ;..,•m 0 C 

Cl'!!!r,('l•~1.\ TiC "Jl.,~W!<~l"£ RT~·CO i-t 

-JAHCD M~ A>..Lt:>!, Efi;;,,• 

'ACVIT':'EO t)J FL .\'IP p.c::. ONLY 

.J!ILL!Ll.G~.'IIf<T;Nl~'I\'C.~I>Cl<~!f C<O.\V 

NOTE NEW REPLY ADDRESS ABOVE EFFECTIVE JUNE 25,2014 

June 25, 2014 

Via Electronic mail: !!!llliei.Kohlmcvcr@faa,gov 

and Regular Mail 

Daniel P. Kohlmeyer 

FAA Eastem Region, AEA-7 

I Aviation Plaza, Room 56! 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Re: Woolpert, Inc. 

FAA Docket No. 20 l3EA250068 

Dear Mr. Kohlmeyer: 

Please be advised that this otlice represents Wool pert, Inc. regarding ihe above-referenced Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty dated June 18, 2014. As such, kindly direct all future correspondence conceming this matter to 

my attention. 

My client would like to be heard at an informal conference concerning the charges brought against the 

company. Kindly send me the releasable portions of the enforcement investigative report (EIR) prior to 

scheduling a mutually convenient date and time for the informal conference. 

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. 

Sincerely, 

!vi Gregmy S. Winton 

Gregory S. Winton 

cc: Woolpert, Inc. 
Exhibit 3 
~ U B. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

July 1,2014 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Finn 

Eastern Region 

Regional Counsel 

Telephone 718-553-3285 

Facsimile: 718-995-5699 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Armapolis_ MD 21401 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, New York 11434 

NOTICE OF INFORMAL CONFERENCE 

CASE NAME: Woolpert, Inc. 

DOCKET NO: 2013EA250068 

An infomml conference in this matter has been scheduled for: 

DATE: August 6, 2014 

TIME: 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time 

You requested a telephonic informal conference, This office will contact you at the telephone 

number you have indicated. 

The purpose of this conference is to give you an opportunity to be heard concerning the 

charges contained in the above-referenced matter. 

If for any reason you will not be able to be present at the scheduled date and time, you must 

contact this office immediately. Postponement of the assigned informal conference date will 

not be granted except tOr good cause shown. The requesc for postponernent nwst be received 

by the undersigned not less than seven (7) days before the scheduled conference, 

All further inquiries regarding the infonnal eonfererlce should be directed to Attorney Daniel 

Kohlmeyer at (718) 553-3266. 

Sincerely, 

ttl /Uc( /l do ILJ'<.J~,___. 

Alfred R. Johnson, c·· lr<-.) Regional Counsel ·i} 

Attachment 
Exhibit 4 
THE AVIATION LAW FIRM 

August 29,2014 

1997 ANNAPOLIS EXCHANGE PARKWAY 

SUITE 300 

ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 

I w877w4~AJRwLAW · 301-294-8550 

866-568-9886 FAX 

301-294-2525 FAX 

WWW.THEAVIATIONLAWFIRM.COM 

Via electronic mail ONLY: Daniel.Kohlmeyer@faa.gov 

Daniel P. Kohlmeyer 

FAA Eastern Region, AEA-7 

1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Re: Woolpert, Inc. 

FAA Docket No. 2013EA250068 

Dear Dan: 

GREGORY S. WINTON, ESQ. 

ADMITTED IN MD, NY, PA, CT, AND D.C. 

GREG@AVIATIONLAWEXPERTS.COM 

JARED M. ALLEN, ESQ.* 

"ADMITTED IN FLAND D.C. ONLY 

JALLE:-:N@AVIATIONLAWEXPERTS.COM 

This will serve as a follow-up to the informal conference held in this matter on August 8, 2014, as well as our 

subsequent conversations. As discussed, it is my client's position that the items listed in paragraph 3 of the 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (NOPCP) (i.e., Leica Computer Processor Unit, model SC70; Leica camera 

controller, model ALS CC105; Leica operation controller, model OC52; Leica camera, model RC30; Lidar 

scanner, model LS70-LP; and Power Bright 400-watt power inverter, model ML400-24), were not "installed on 

the aircraft without the required FAA approvals and maintenance/alteration entries," as alleged. 

In fact, the items identified merely consist of non-essential, non-required portable electronic devices that were 

not permanently installed in the aircraft. Therefore, since no maintenance or alteration was performed to carry 

the portable electronic devices onboard the aircraft, no FAA approvals and/or maintenance/alteration entries 

were required for the flight operation conducted pursuant to 14 C.F.R. part 91. 

As you are aware, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 1.1, the term Maintenance means inspection, overhaul, repair, 

preservation, and the replacement of parts, but excludes preventive maintenance. Since the non-essential, 

non-required portable electronic devices were not permanently installed in the aircraft, but merely carried on 

board, my client did not perform any inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, or replacement of parts, with 

respect to the portable equipment. Accordingly, no maintenance was performed and therefore, no record entries 

were required. 

Nevertheless, the NO PCP alleges that (i) the aircraft was "not in an airworthy condition" in violation of 14 

C.F.R. § 91.7 (See Paragraphs 4 and (a)); (ii) Woolpert "performed maintenance, preventative maintenance, or 

alterations" in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.403(b) (See Paragraphs 5 and (b)); (iii) Woolpert "operated an aircraft 

that had undergone maintenance, preventative maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration when it had not been 

approved for return to service" in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(l) (See Paragraphs 6 and (c)); and (iv) 

Woolpert "operated an aircraft that had undergone maintenance, preventative maintenance, rebuilding, or 

alteration" when the required record entry had not been made in violation of 14 C.F .R. § 91.407(a)(2) (See 

Paragraphs 7 and (d)). 
Daniel P. Kohlmeyer 

August 29, 2014 

Page 2 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 43.9, with regard to Maintenance record entries, each person who maintains, performs 

preventive maintenance, rebuilds, or alters an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or 

component part shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment. However, since Woolpert did 

not maintain, perform preventive maintenance, rebuild, or alter the subject aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, 

propeller, appliance, or component, with regard to the non-essential, non-required portable electronic devices 

that were merely carried on board the aircraft, no maintenance record entries were required. 

With regard to the allegation that "Woolpert operated the aircraft when it was not in an airworthy condition" in 

violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7 (See Paragraphs 4 and (a)), it is well settled that although airworthiness is not 

defined in the regulations, Board precedent has established a two-part test to determine whether an aircraft is 

airworthy. Specifically, when the Administrator alleges that an operator has violated 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a), the 

Board has long held that the standard for airworthiness consists of two prongs: (I) whether the aircraft conforms 

to its type certificate and applicable Airworthiness Directives; and (2) whether the aircraft is in a condition for 

safe operation." Administrator v. Surratt and Walker, NTSB Order No. EA-5514 at 16-17 (2010) citing 

Administrator v. Doppes, 5 NTSB 50, 52 n.6 (1985); see also Administrator v. Anderson, NTSB Order No. 

EA-3976 at 2 (1993); Administrator v. Nielsen, NTSB Order No. EA-3755 at 4 (1992); Administrator v. Copsey, 

7 NTSB 1316, 1317 (1991 ). In the present case, since the portable electronic devices were merely carried on 

board the aircraft, their presence did not affect (1) whether the aircraft conformed to its type certificate; or (2) 

whether the aircraft was in a condition for safe operation. Therefore, the aircraft was airworthy. 

Lastly, it should be noted that since Woolpert was not operating the aircraft pursuant to an air carrier operating 

certificate, or under instrument flight rules (IFR), the portable electronic devices, which did not cause 

interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft, were permissible pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

§ 91.21. In fact, the portable electronic devices met the safety standards of the Radio Technical Commission 

for Aeronautics 1 (i.e., RTCA D0/160). 

Based upon the above, the Administrator clearly lacks any basis in fact and law to continue the prosecution of 

this matter. Therefore, I respectfully request that this matter be closed without further action. In the meantime, 

if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. 

Sincerely, 

Is/ Gregory S. Winton 

Gregory S. Winton 

cc: Woolpert, Inc. 

1 RTCA, Inc. (known as Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) is a US volunteer organization that 

develops technical guidance for use by government regulatory authorities and by industry. It has over 200 

committees and overall acts as an advisory body to the FAA. RTCA is sponsored as a Federal Advisory 

Committee by the Federal Aviation Administration. Guidance documents are developed and drafted by Special 

Committee (SC) and are based on a consensus developed within the SC charged with responsibility for the 

given document. The guidance documents are based on expert technical opinion. 
Exhibit 5 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

lN THE MATTER OF 

WOOLPERT LLC 

Respondent 

FAADOCKETNO. 2013EA250068 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

DMSNO.FAAADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

NOT YET ASSIG1\'ED 

Hearing Date: NOT YET ASSIGNED 

Hearing Location: NOT YET ASIGNED 

COMES NOW, Respondent, Wool pert LLC, by and through undersigned counsel 

pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.16, and hereby requests a hearing concerning the allegations raised in 

the Complainant's Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty dated June 18,2014, which proposes to 

assess a civil penalty in the amount of$7,000.00. Respondent denies the violations alleged in 

the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty and prays that it be reversed. 

Respondent requests that a hearing be held in New York, N.Y. A hearing is expected to 

last two (2) full days. 
Dated: March 4, 2015 

2 

/ 

~· 

GRE<;JOR ' ". NTON, ESQ. 

ThsrAviation Law Firm 

.1997 Annapolis Exchange Park-way 

··suite 300 

Annapolis, Maryland 2140 I 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (866) 568-9886 

Atrorney filr Respondent 
~!?RI!fiCf).Tj::_QF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date served by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, an original 

and one (1) copy of the foregoing Request for Hearing addressed to: 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2014 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

And, further, that I have this date served by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, a copy of the 

foregoing Request for Hearing addressed to: 

Dated: 

Dan Kohlmeyer 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Regional Counsel's Office, AEA-7 

1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Tel: 718 553-3266 

Fax: 718 533-5699 

March 4, 2015 

/) 

/ 

/ 

~G~ S. WINTON, ESQ. 

The Avmtion Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, Maryland 21401 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (866) 568-9886 

Attorney for Re.\1Jondent 

3 
Exhibit 6 
Greg, 

I reviewed your letter with flight standards and our opinion on the case is still the same. Do you have a settlement 

offer to make? If not, I'll proceed with issuing the final notice. 

Thanks, 

Dan 

From: Gregory Winton [majlto:greg@aviationlawexperts.com] 

Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 2:58 PM 

To: Kohlmeyer, Daniel (FAA) 

Cc: Jared Michael Allen 

Subject: Re: Woolpert LLC 

Dan: 

See attached correspondence. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional 

information. 

Regards, 

Greg 

PLEASE NOTE THE NEW MAILING ADDRESS EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Finn 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Toll free: l-877-4-AIR LAW 

Local: (301) 294-8550 

Cell: (301) 529-5660 

Fax: 

(301) 294-2525 

Fax: (866) 568-9886 

On Aug 25.2014, at l :OJ PM, Daniel.Kohhneyer@faa.gov wrote: 

Greg, 

Can you get me any documentation/correspondence on this? 

Thanks, 

Dan Kohlmeyer 

AEA-7, FAA 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Office: (718) 553-3266 

Cell: (631) 741-5958 
Daniei.Kohlmeyer@faa.gov 

To: Gregory Winton 

RE: Woolpert; FAA Docket No. 2013EA250068 

Greg, 

We haven't made a decision regarding that, either. 

Thanks, 

Dan 

From: Gregory Winton [mailto:greg@aviationlawexperts.com] 

Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 12:02 PM 

To: Kohlmeyer, Daniel (FAA) 

Cc: Kelly, Brendan (FAA) 

Subject: Re: Woolpert; FAA Docket No. 2013EA250068 

Dan: 

Thanks for the update. Please keep me posted. 

February 27, 2015 12:19 PM 

In the meantime, have you made a decision about the other non-essential, non-required portable electronic 

devices that were carried aboard the aircraft during a part 91, daytime flight conducted under visual flight rules 

(VFR) pursuantto 14 C.F.R. 91.21? 

Thanks, 

Greg 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Toll free: 1-877-4-AIR LAW 

Local: (301) 294-8550 

Cell: (301) 529-5660 

Fax: (301) 294-2525 

Fax: (866) 568-9886 

On Feb 27,2015, at 11:30 AM, <Daniel.Kohlmeyer!Zilfaa.gov> wrote: 

Greg, 

We're currently working with ACO to get their opinion on the LIDAR equipment in the aircraft. Once we get an answer 

from them, I'll contact you. 

Regards, 
Dan Kohlmeyer 

AEA-7, FAA 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Office: (718) 553-3266 

Cell: (631) 741-5958 

Fax: (718) 995-5699 

Email: daniel.kohlmeyer@faa.gov 

From: Gregory Winton [mailto:greg@aviationlawexperts.com] 

Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:21 AM 

To: Kohlmeyer, Daniel (FAA); Kelly, Brendan (FAA) 

Subject: Re: Woolpert; FAA Docket No. 2013EA250068 

Dan & Brendan: 

This will serve as a follow-up to my emails below dated January 16, February 6, February 17, and February 23, 

2015, regarding the above-referenced Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty. 

By email dated February 18,2015, Dan stated that he would be sure to respond to me on this issue by the end of 

this week (i.e., today). 

Kindly advise me of the status of this matter? 

Regards, 

Greg 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Toll free: 1-877-4-AIR LAW 

Local: (301) 294-8550 

Cell: (301) 529-5660 

Fax: (301) 294-2525 

Fax: (866) 568-9886 

On Feb 23, 2015, at 1:32PM, Gregory Winton <greg!W.aviationlawexperts.com> wrote: 

Dan & Brendan: 

This will serve as a follow-up to my emails below dated January 16, February 6 & February 17, 2015, as well as 

your response on February 18, 2015, regarding the above-referenced Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty. 

What is the status of this matter? 
Regards, 

Greg 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Toll free: 1-877-4-AIR LAW 

Local: (301) 294-8550 

Cell: (301) 529-5660 

Fax: (301) 294-2525 

Fax: (866) 568-9886 

On Feb 18,2015, at 7:54AM, Daniel.Kohlmeyer@faa.gov wrote: 

Greg, 

Brendan will be back in the office on Monday; I'll be sure to respond to you on this issue next week. 

Thanks, 

Dan 

From: Gregory Winton [mailto:greg@aviationlawexperts.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 7:11PM 

To: Kohlmeyer, Daniel (FAA); Kelly, Brendan (FAA) 

Subject: Re: Woolpert; FAA Docket No. 2013EA250068 

Dan & Brendan: 

This will serve as a follow-up to my emails below dated January 16 & February 6, 2015, regarding the abovereferenced Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty issued to my client, Woolpert. 

What is the status of this matter? 

Regards, 

Greg 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 2140 I 

Toll free: 1-877-4-AIR LAW 
Local: (301) 294-8550 

Cell: (301) 529-5660 

Fax: (301) 294-2525 

Fax: (866) 568-9886 

On Feb 6, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Gregory Winton <greg(il)aviationlawexperts.com> wrote: 

Dan & Brendan: 

I hope that you are both doing well. 

This will serve as a follow-up to my email below dated January 16,2015, regarding the Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty issued to my client, Woolpert. 

What is the status of this matter? 

Regards, 

Greg 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Toll free: 1-877-4-AIR LAW 

Local: (301) 294-8550 

Cell: (301) 529-5660 

Fax: (301) 294-2525 

Fax: (866) 568-9886 

Begin forwarded message: 

From: Gregory Winton <greg@aviationlawexperts.com> 

Subject: AC 20-183 

Date: January 16, 2015 2:09:59 PM EST 

To: "Brendan A. Kelly, Esq." <brendan.kelly@faa.gov> 

Cc: Daniel Kohlmeyer <Daniei.Kohlmeyer@faa.gov>, Jared Michael Allen 

<jallen@aviationlawexperts.com> 

Bee: Gregory Winton <greg@aviationlawexperts.com>, Paul Grodecki 

<paul.grodecki@woolpert.com>, Bob Shelton <Bob.Shelton@Woolpert.com> 
Dan and Brendan: 

See attached Advisory Circular (A C) issued on December 15,2014, regarding airworthiness approval ofLIDAR. 

As you can see in appendix B, "since the [LIDAR]laser equipment is non required aircraft cabin-mounted 

equipment. the guidance in AC 20-168 could be used for the airworthiness requirements ... " (emphasis added). I 

have also attached AC 20-168. 

The aircraft operated by Woolpert was not unairworthy. Kindly withdraw the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty. 

Regards, 

Greg 

Gregory S. Winton, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Toll free: 1-877-4-AIR LAW 

Local: (301) 294-8550 

Cell: (301) 529-5660 

Fax: (301) 294-2525 

Fax: (866) 568-9886 

<AC 20-183 -Laser Airworthiness Installation Guidance- AC _20-183.pdf> 

<AC 20-168 non required equipment copy.pdf> 

<NOPCP.pdf> 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that I have this date served by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, an 

original and one (1) copy of the foregoing ANSWER TO THE FAA'S MOTION TO 

DISMISS RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR HEARING PURSUANT TO 14 

C.F.R. § 13.16 addressed to: 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2014 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

And, further, that I have this date served by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, a copy of 

the foregoing ANSWER TO THE FAA'S MOTION TO DISMISS RESPONDENT'S 

REQUEST FOR HEARING PURSUANT TO 14 C.F.R. § 13.16 addressed to: 

Dated: 

Dan Kohlmeyer 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Regional Counsel's Office, AEA-7 

1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Tel: 718 553-3266 

Fax: 718 533-5699 

COURTESY COPY 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200New Jersey Ave, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

March 25, 2015 

R S. WINTON, ESQ. 

Th~:A tion Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, Maryland 21401 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (866) 568-9886 

Attorney for Respondent