U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
IN THE MATTER OF

WOOLPERT LLC Respondent FAADOCKETNO. 2013EA250068 (Civil Penalty Proceeding) DMS NO. FAA-2015-0211 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE NOT YETASSIGNED Hearing Date: NOT YETASSIGNED Hearing Location: NOT YETASSIGNED 

# RECEIVED MAR 

## 272015 

## HEARING DOCKET

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO THE FAA'S MOTION TO DISMISS RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FORHEARING PURSUANT TO 14 C.F.R. § 

### 13.16 COMES NOW, Respondent, WoolpertLLC, by and through undersigned counselpursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.218, and hereby answers the FAA's Motion to Dismiss Respondent's Request for Hearing Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.16. In supportthereof, Respondent states the following: 

### BACKGROUND Proceduralhistory This matter involves the issuance ofa notice ofproposed civil penalty (hereinafter "NO PCP") to WoolpertLLC ("Woolpert") by the Federal AviationAdministration ("FAA'') onJune 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 allegationthat the non-essential, non-required portable electronic devicesused for aerial surveying, and therefore, carried onboardthe aircraft by Woolpert, renderedthe aircraftunairworthy. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.16(f), not later than 30 days after receipt ofthe NO PCP, Woolpertrequested atelephonic informal conference, whichwas held on August 6, 2014. Thereafter, onAugust 29,2014, Woolpert submitted additional informationto the FAA, in writing, demonstrating that a violation ofthe regulations did not occur. To date, the FAA attorney has not agreed to withdrawtheNO PCP, or otherwise issue a final notice ofproposed civil penalty (hereinafter "FNPCP") pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.16(g). Therefore, since Woolpert has exhausted its administrative remedies, the only course ofactionremaining wasto request a hearing pursuantto § 13.16(h), which Woolpert did onMarch 4, 2015. Inresponse, the FAA filed the presentmotionto 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 I03 year-old design, geospatial and infrastructure management firm with a long and well-recognizedhistory in mapping and aerial surveying. Woolpert excels inthe collection ofaerial imagery from manned, fixed-wing aircraft for the purpose ofmaking highly accurate aerial maps for a broadrange ofclients and applications, including the U.S. Government. 

### In order to collect aerial imagery, Woolpert utilizes portable electronic devices carried onboard its aircraft.TheNotice of Proposed CivilPenalty (NO PCP) The FAA'sNOPCP alleges that on or about July 31,2013, Woolpert operated a Cessna402B aircraft, on a flight from Eagle CreekAirpark (KEYE) inIndianapolis, IN, to Essex County (KCDW) in Caldwell, NJ, and that during the flight, solely byreason of carrying potable electronic devices onboard for aerial survey purposes: (i) the aircraft was "notin an airworthy condition" in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7 (See Exhibit 1, Paragraphs 4 and (a)); (ii) Woolpert "performedmaintenance, 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 thathad undergone maintenance, preventative maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration when ithad not been approved for returnto service" inviolation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(l) (See Exhibit l, Paragraphs 6 and (c)); and (iv) Woolpert "operated an aircraft thathad undergone maintenance, preventative maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration" when the requiredrecord entry had notbeen made in violation of 14 C.F.R. 

### § 91.407(a)(2) (See Exhibit l, Paragraphs 7 and (d)). All ofthe allegations concerning maintenance involve the alleged "installation" ofportable electronic devices used for aerial survey. Summary ofWoo/pert'sDefense to theNO PCP Contrary to the FAA's allegations contained intheNO PCP, Woolpert did not maintain, performpreventive maintenance, or otherwise alter the subject aircraft with regard to the non-essential, non-required portable electronic devices that were merely carried onboardthe aircraft. Therefore, no maintenance record entries were required pursuantto 14 C.F.R. part 43 orpart91. As such, the FAA's allegations are without basis infact or law.Withregardto the FAA's allegation that "Wool pert operatedthe aircraft whenit was not inan airworthy condition" in violation of 14 C.F.R. 

### § 91.7 

### (See Exhibit 1, Paragraphs 4 and (a)), it is well settledthatthe term 

### airworthiness is notdefined inthe regulations. However, the National Transportation Safety Board (hereinafter "NTSB" or the "Board") has established a two-parttestto determine whether an aircraft is airworthy. Specifically, the Board has longheld that the standard for airworthiness consists oftwo prongs: (1) whether the aircraft conformsto its type certificate and applicable Airworthiness Directives; and (2) whetherthe aircraft is in a condition for safe operation. 

### Administrator v. Surratt and Walker, NTSB OrderNo. EA-5514 at 16-17 (2010) citing 

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

### Administrator v. Anderson, NTSB OrderNo. EA-3976 at2 (1993);

### Administrator v. Nielsen, NTSB Order No. EA3755 at 4 (1992);

### Administrator v. Copsey, 7NTSB 1316, 1317 (1991). Inthe present case, since theportable electronic devices were merely carried onboardthe aircraft, their presence did not affect (1) whether the aircraft conformedto 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 withoutbasis infact or law. Lastly, it should be notedthat since Woolpert was not operating the aircraft pursuantto an air carrier operating certificate, orunder instrument flight rules (IFR), the portable electronic devices, which did not cause interference withthe navigation or communication system ofthe aircraft, were permissible pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 91.21 1

. 1 § 91.21 Portable electronic devices. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) ofthis section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command ofan aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any ofthe following U.S.-registered civil aircraft: (I) Aircraft operated by a holder ofan air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or (2) Any other aircraft while it is operatedunder IFR.Based upon the above, the FAA clearly lacks any substantial basis to continue the prosecution ofthis matter. None ofthe material facts concerningthe

### NOPCP are in dispute. Furthermore, since the FAA's motion to dismiss Woolpert's hearing request is not supported by facts or law, itmustbe denied. AdditionalInformation Demonstrating That a Violation o(theRegulationsDidNot Occur On June 25, 2014, Woolpert submitted a written request for a telephonic informal conference in orderto discuss the

### NOPCP withthe 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 onAugust 6, 2014. See Exhibit 3. Thereafter, onAugust 29, 2014, Wool pert submitted additional information, in writing, demonstrating that a violation ofthe regulations did not occur. See Exhibit4. For a period ofeight (8) months following the date during which the parties participated in aninformal conference pursuant to§ 13.16(£)(2) (i.e., August 6, 2014), the agency attorney has still not agreed to withdrawthe 

### NOPCP 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 pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.16(h) onMarch 4, 2015. On

(b) Paragraph (a) ofthis section does not apply to- (1) Portable voice recorders; (2) Hearing aids; (3) Heart pacemakers; (4) Electric shavers; or (5) Anyother portable electronic device thatthe operator ofthe aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system ofthe aircraft on which it is to be used. (c) In the case ofan aircraft operated by a holder ofan air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(S) ofthis section shall be made by that operator ofthe aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case ofother aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator ofthe aircraft. Emphasis added.March 17, 2014, the agency attorney filed the presentmotion seeking to dismiss Woolpert's Request for Hearing as untimely. 

### Brie[ Note RegardingAgeo[Case The allegations inthis case date back approximately twenty (20) months to July 31,2013. Since that time, the FAA issued the

### NOPCP; an informal conference was requested and held onAugust 6, 2014; Woolpert submitted written informationto the agency attorney onAugust 29,2014, demonstrating that a violation ofthe regulations did notoccur; and on March 4, 2015, Woolpert served a Request for Hearing ("Hearing Request") onboth the FAA Hearing Docket and the FAA Eastern Regional Counsel. In response to Woolpert'sHearing Request, the FAA filed a motion to dismiss requesting that the HearingRequest, 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

### NOPCP or otherwise issues a 

### FNPCP, this pending civilpenalty matter will continue indefmitely. As a result, Woolpertwouldbe denied its constitutional right ofdue process concerning the present civil penalty action, whichcontinues to cause undue prejudice and financial hardship. Clearly, such a result was never intended by the FAA's Rules ofPractice for civil penalty proceedings (14 C.P.R. part 13). 

### FAA Commitmentto Fair andExpeditiousAdjudication In 1988, whenthe FAA first published its newrules ofpractice for civilpenalty proceedings, the agency emphasized its commitmentto the rule oflaw and due process: The rules are intendedto provide an appropriate level ofprocedural formality in civil penalty proceedings, focus attention on the rights ofindividuals subjectto civilpenalties, and ensure that due process is afforded those individuals during the civil penalty enforcementprocess.See 53 Fed. Reg. 34646 (Sept. 7, 1988). The FAA asserted that administrative civil penaltyprosecution (in lieu of prosecution inthe U.S. District Court) would "strengthen" the FAA's safety enforcement, because it allowed the FAAto avoid the "lengthy process" ofreferring 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 certainperiod oftime, to provide both "effective" safety enforcement, and to protectthe 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 commitmentto provide prompt safety enforcementproceedings and "timely adjudication" by adopting a two-year regulatory limitations periodto "initiate a case." See 55 Fed. Reg. 27555 (July 3, 1990). Inthe present case, althoughthe FAAhas satisfied thetwo-year regulatory limitations period by serving the

### NOPCP onJune 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 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations, directly relatedto 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 withdrawtheNO PCP or otherwise issue a FNPCP pursuantto § 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 offiling a complaint. The issue raised by the FAA's motion to dismiss in the present case is whetherthe Respondent filed a timely request for hearing. Based upon the documents and evidence in the record, the FAA has failed to prove thatWoolpert did not timely file its Hearing Request. 14 C.P.R.§ 13.16(g)(2) provides the following: 

### Not laterthan 15 days after receiptofthe final notice ofproposed civil penalty,the person charged with a violation shall do one ofthe following--(i) Submitthe amount ofthe 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,pursuantto 14 C.P.R. § 13 .16(g)(2), the operative date for calculating the due date ofany request for hearing is the date a respondent receives a FNPCP. See In re Ryan InternationalAirlines, Inc., FAA-1999-5805,FAA Order No. 2000-2, at4 (Feb. 3, 2000). TheFAA bears the burden ofproofto show the date ofreceipt ofthe FNPCP. 14 C.P.R.§ 13.224(b). 

### ARGUMENT There is no evidence inthe record demonstrating proofofwhen the Respondent received a FNPCP. In fact, the FAA never sent a FNPCP. This lack ofevidence prohibits the FAA from initiating a calculation regarding the ultimate due date for theHearing Requestpursuantto 14 C.P.R. § 13 .16(g)(2)--the date of service ofthe FNPCP plus 15 days. Itis also undisputed thatWoolpert 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 RobertHarris, FAA-2002-14236, Order ofChiefAdministrative Law Judge (Aug. 27, 2003) (citingIn
re Larry's Flying Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 98-4 at 7 (March 12, 1998) and Safety Equipment andSign Co., Ltd., FAA Order No. 92-76 at5 (December 21, 1992)). Based upon the record, it is not necessary to determine whether the Respondent had good causefor filing its Hearing Request on March 4, 2015, priorto receipt of a FNPCP. The calculation ofthe 15 days oftime does not begin until the date the Respondent actually receives a FNPCP. In this case, the FAA has failed to prove, by preponderance ofthe evidence, that Woolpert ever received a FNPCP. Assuming arguendo that Respondent's Hearing Requestwas untimely, then it mustbe 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 existedfor Woolpert to file its Hearing Request on March 4, 2015-itwas filed nearly 8 months after issuance ofthe NO PCP, since no FNPCP was ever issued. During that 8-month period,Respondent's counsel was waiting for the agency attorney to either withdrawthe NOPCP, or otherwise issue aFNPCP in accordance with§ 13.16(g). Following the informal conference on August 6, 2014 (Exhibit 3), and additional information submittedbyWool pert on August 29, 2014 (Exhibit 4), agency counsel sent
anemailto Respondent's counsel on September 5, 2014, stating that "I reviewed your letter with flight standards and our opinion onthe case is still the same. Do you have asettlement offer to make? Ifnot, I'llproceed withissuing the final notice." [i.e., FNPCP] See Exhibit 6. Although Respondent's counsel did not "have a settlement offerto make" as requested inthe email, agency counsel neverproceeded "with issuing the final notice" as he suggested. Nevertheless, undersigned counsel contactedthe FAA attorney by email
onJanuary 16, February 6, February 17, February 23, and February 27, 2015, regarding status ofcivil penalty action. Inresponse, by email dated February 27,2015, agency counsel stated that "we haven'tmade a decision" regarding withdrawal ofthe alleged violations. See Exhibit 6. Accordingly, on March 4, 2015, Respondent filed its Hearing Requestpursuantto § 13.16. Therefore, assuming arguendo that Respondent's Hearing Requestwas untimely, good cause has been shown. As a result, the Hearing Request should notbe 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 WRITTENREQUEST FORAN INFORMAL CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS THE MATTERWITHTHEAGENCY ATTORNEY. On or about June 18,2014, the FAA issuedthe NO PCPto 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 inthe amount of$7,000. See Exhibit 1. Along withtheNO PCP, the FAA provided a document entitled "Information Regarding Civil Penalties under Title 49 US.

### C. Section 46301" (hereinafter "theInformation document"). See Exhibit 1. Specifically, the Information document states the following inrelevant part: WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTERWOOLPERT RECEIVES THE NOTICE TO WHICH TillS INFORMATION SHEET IS ATTACHED, Woolpert may elect to proceed in one or more ofthe following ways by marking the appropriatebox(es) onthe attached election sheet andreturning itby mail orpersonaldelivery to the address providedbelow. An explanation ofeach option is set forth below. Emphasis in original. Furthermore, the Information documentprovides an explanation ofoptions in six (6) numberedparagraphs. Specifically, paragraph numbered 6 statesthe 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 ofthe following locations: anFAAregional office; the FAA Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City; or FAA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. A list ofthe addresses ofthese offices (hereinafterrefereedto as "the Informal Conference Locationlist" or "the list") is attached to the enclosed reply form. Emphasis added. Further downthe page, belowparagraphnumber 6 oftheInformation document, the following is stated: IfWoolpertrequests an informal conference with anFAA 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 Woolpertthat ifitrequested an informal conference with anFAA attorney within 30 days after receiving theNO PCP, Woolpert must "not also request" a "formal hearingunder 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.16." Furthermore, the FAA explicitly statedthat "Woolpert's request for an informal conference will not affect its right to request a formal hearing later." Accordingly, onJune 25,2014, Respondent, by andthrough undersigned counsel, submitted a writtenrequest for an informal conference to discuss the matterwiththe agency attorney pursuantto 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.16(f)(2)(iii). 

### See Exhibit 2.As such, according to the FAA's own written admission containedwithinthe Information document attachedto theNO PCP (Exhibit 1), Woolpert's request for an informal conference on June 25,2014, didnot affect its right to request a formal hearing
on March4, 2015. Therefore, the FAA's disingenuous motionto dismiss Woolpert's HearingRequestis not supportedby facts or law, and as a result, mustbe denied. 

### 2. PURSUANT TO 14 C.F.R. § 13.16(h), WOOLPERT TIMELY REQUESTED A HEARING. 14 C.F.R. § 13.16(f), entitledNotice of proposedcivilpenalty, states the following inrelevantpart: (f) Notice of proposedcivilpenalty. A civilpenalty action is initiated by sending a notice ofproposed civilpenaltyto the person charged with a violation orto the agent for services for the personunder 49 U.S.C. 46103. A notice ofproposed civil penalty will be sentto the individual charged witha violation orto the presidentofthe corporation or company charged with a violation. Inresponse to a notice ofproposed civil penalty, a corporation or company may designate inwriting anotherpersonto receive documents inthat civil penalty action. The notice ofproposed civilpenalty contains a statement ofthe charges and the amount ofthe proposed civil penalty. Not later than 30 days after receipt ofthenotice of proposed civil penalty, the person charged with a violation shall- (1) Submitthe amount ofthe proposed civilpenalty or an agreed-upon amount, inwhich case either an order assessing civilpenalty or compromise order shallbe issued inthat amount; (2) Submit to the agency attorney one ofthe following: (i) Written information, including documents and witness statements, demonstrating that a violation ofthe regulations did not occur or that a penalty or the amount ofthe penalty is not warranted by the circumstances. (ii) A writtenrequestto reduce the proposed civilpenalty, the amount ofreduction, and the reasons and any documents supporting a reduction ofthe proposed civil penalty, including records indicating a financial inability to pay orrecords showingthatpayment ofthe proposed civil penalty would preventthe personfrom continuing inbusiness. (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 shallbe filed withthe hearing docket clerk. Emphasis added. Pursuantthe regulatory language contained within 14 C.P.R.§ 13.16(f), not later than 30 days after receipt ofthe notice ofproposed civil penalty, Woolpert was required to either: (1) submitthe amount ofthe proposed civil penalty or an agreed-upon amount;
or (2) submitto the agency attorney one ofthe following: (i) Writteninformation demonstrating that a violation ofthe regulations did not occur or that a penalty orthe amount ofthe penalty is not warranted by the circumstances; (ii) A writtenrequestto reduce the proposed civil penalty; (iii) A written request for an informal conferenceto discuss the matter withthe agency attorney and to submitrelevant 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 pursuantto§ 13.16(£)(2), Woolperttimely complied with the requirements of§ 13 .16. However, the FAAhas refused to either withdraw the

### NOPCP
or otherwise issue a 

### FNPCP in accordance with § 13.16(g)(1)(ii), which states the following:(1) A final notice ofproposed civil penalty may be issued- (ii) Ifthe parties participated in any informal procedures under paragraph (f)(2) ofthis section and the parties have not agreed to compromise the action or the agency attorney has not agreed to withdrawthe notice of proposed civil penalty. Inthe present case, the record establishes that the parties participated in informal procedures under paragraph§ 13.16 (f)(2) onAugust 6, 2014, and the parties have not agreed to compromise the action. Furthermore, the agency attorney has not agreed to withdrawthe notice ofproposed civil penalty. As a result, since the FAA has refused to issue a FNPCP pursuantto § 13.16(g), Woolpert timely requested a hearingpursuantto§ 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) ofthis section, to be conductedinaccordance withthe procedures in subpart G ofthis part. A person requesting a hearing shall file a written request for a hearing withthe hearing docket clerk, using the appropriate address set forth in §13.210(a) ofthis part, and shall mail a copy ofthe requestto the agency attorney. The request for a hearing may be inthe form ofa letterbutmustbe dated and signed by the person requesting a hearing. The request for a hearing may betypewritten ormay be legiblyhandwritten. Therefore, since Woolpert timely filed its HearingRequestonMarch4, 2015 (See Exhibit 5), the FAA's motion to dismiss Woolpert's Hearing Requestis not supportedby facts or law and mustbe denied. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Respondent, Woolpert LLC, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully requests thatthe FAA's Motionto Dismiss Respondent's Requestfor Hearing Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.16 be denied.

### Dated: March 25,2015



### GRE;:GORY
.WINTON, ESQ. 

### ThtAviation LawFirm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Tel: (301) 294-8550 Fax: (866) 568-9886 Attorney for Respondent

# Exhibit 1U.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 REGULARMAIL WoolpertLLC 

### 5FalconDrive Suite 102 Peachtree, GA 30269 DocketNo. 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 FederalAviationRegulations by reason ofthe foliowing: 

### 1. At all times relevant herein, Woolpert, 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 CreekAirpark (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 ProcessorUnit, model SC70 b. 

### Lei.ca camera controller, model ALS CCI05 c. 

### Leica operationcontroller, model OC52 

### d. Leicacamera, model RC30 e. Lidar scanner, model LS70·LP 

### t: PowerBright400-wattpowerinverter,modelML400-24

### 4. By reason ofthe above, Woolpert operated the aircraft when it was not in an ainvorthy condition. 5. Woolpert thus, as O\'i1ler 

### or operator ofthe 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 hadundergone maintenance, preventivemaintenance, rebuilding, or alteration when it had not been approved for retum to service by a person authorized under Section 43.7 oftheFederal Aviation Regulations. 7. Woolpert thus, as uwner or operator ofthe aircraft, operated an aircraft that hadundergone maintenance, preventivemaintenance, rebuilding, or alteration when the maintenance record entry required by Sections 43.9 or 43.11, as applicable, ofthe Federal AviationRegulations 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 otherthan as prescribed in this subpart and otherapplicable regulations, includingpart43 ofthis chapter.
c. Section 9l.407(a)(l), which states that no person may operate an aircraftthat has undergone maintenance, preventivemaintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless it has been approved forretmnto service by a person authorized under Section 43.7 ofthe FederalAviation Regulations. d. Section 91.407(a)(2), which states thatno person may operate an aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventivemaintenance, rebuilding, or alteration 1.m!ess the maintenance record entry required by 

### Sections 43.9 or43.11, as applicable, ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations has been made. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §4630l(a)(5)(A), Woolpertis subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000 for eachviolation ofthe regulation(s). Afterrevie>ving all oftheinformation 

### 2

### contained in ourinvestigative file, we proposeto assess a civil penaltyin 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. Woolpert 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. 

### IfWoolpert fails to submit its choice within that time, 

### it \Viii 

### have no fi1rther right to 

### participate in the informalprocedures. Alfred R. 

### Johnson, Jr. 

### Regional Counsel


### By: Dan Kohlmeyer Attomey Enclosure lnformation Sheet Option Selection Form Informal ConferenceLocationList



### 3INFORi\lATlON REGAR.DJNG CIVIL PENALTIES UNDER TITLE

**-~9** C.S.C SECTION ·16301 Under 49 U,S.C. §4630I, ony person who violates pertinent provisions of49 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 ofthe 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 WOOLPERT 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 ofeach option is set forth bclmv. I, Woolpert mny submit the amount ofthe 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 TilAT 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 ofthe regulations wa.o; Mt committed or thui. ifit were. the filt.':ts and circumstances do notwarmm 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 ofany 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 uhearing_, unles-s it also

**~:le-cts** paragraph 5. 4. Woolpett may submit, in \\riting, infomwtion and rccords indicatingthat it is linanclally unahk to pny the proposed civil PCTHllty, ()fshowing 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 nreduction in-the civil pt--nalty is npproprilltG, and provide :mysuppLlrling

**Uocument:~tion.** The int\mnation Woolpert provides will be

**~onsidcrcd** in

**dct~nni11ing** whether thl;) amount it specified shouldbe asscs:;cd. Iflhc FAA accepts Woolpert'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. Woolpert mny request nn opportu11ity to lli:::.cuss the math:r with an FAA :attornl!y by a tdcphonic inlimnal con!Cn:ncc, or mun in-person informal conference nt OtN (Jfthe following loc<Jtions: un FAA regional uffi<::c: the FAA /wronmrtical Ccntcrin Oklahoma Cily; or FAA Headquarters in \Vashington. DC. Alist oftl1c 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 (Jfthe oflkes: on the lllf1lfl1lal Confen:ncc Location list will

**b~.:** grnnwd, rcgan.llc.<is of whcthc:r the office Woolpert'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) orFAA 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: ofthe inlhm1al contCrcncc will consult and coordinate wl1h the office thal iss.ned the notico before settling or nthcrwb;c disposing ofthe case after tile infonllal conference, \Voolpcrt also may request nn in-person infonnal co11fcrcncc at an FAA ollkcmhcrthan 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 otherthan 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 ofu.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 conterence 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 ofthe date Woolpl!rt requests utt informul conkrcnce. B\.'causc orthese restrictions, Woolpcrt is

**reqt~e."tcd** toindicate both the FAA orncc h pn.:ll:-rs and onl! ofthe 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 orthe lm:tttions on the litformal 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 carefulconsiJeratim1. Since the attached letter may become a part ofthe 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 orviolations, ;;\lld submit tl1c reasons and any additional in!brmatiotJ in writing (\•>ith appropriate supporting documentation) to support \Voulpcrt's n:qucst. Ifthe FAA accepts Woolpert'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 TOA HEARING WILL 1-:0T BE AFFECTED. 8. Wuotpert may request a hearing in accordance with section 13.16 ofthe FAR
. Woolpert"s rcquest!TH)st be dated and sig11Cd. \[ Wuolpcrt request:> ahearing, a Complairn will be filed <lnd an administrative- lawJudge 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 ofproot: At the conclus-ion ofthe

**hc~Lring,** a!! issm:s. offact and law will be dccidcd and adecision will b<: rendered whether, and ill what amount, a civil penalty will be assessed. Ifeither party. the agency or Woolpert is dissatisfii!tl with thejudge's decision, tl1at party cnn ap]Xal thejudge's decision to the FA:\ dccisionmaker. lf Woolpc1t is dissatisfied with th¢ FA.>\

**d~clsimm\akcr':. J~ci:.;ion.**  \Voolpert may seck review ofthe FAA dcci'>ionnmkcr's decision in !lie Utlited States Couns ofAppeals. \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 acopywthe 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 ofthe R..:giom1l Counsel Federal AviatiorJ Administrntion IAviation Plaza Jam:1h.:a. NY 11434 Woo!pcrt's response to the Notice orProposed 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** ofProp.oscd Civil Penalty In

**r~ly** to your Notice ofPropost::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 acivil penalty wlll be lssucd in thm ammmt without further notice. Woolpcrt UNDERSTANDS THAT IT liAS WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO A HEARING. 2. I 1Woolpert. has paid the proposed civil penalty with u credit cnrd over the Intcmct mthe 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 atelephonic intbmtal conG:rertcc to discuss this matterwith 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 orthe date and time ofthls

**conf~ren\!c.)** 1'\0TE: IfWoolpl!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 behalfbefore the date ofth_c infonmd C(tnferencc. b. l] Woolpert hereby requests an in-per.so11 in!Ormal conlhencc "1than F,\A aUorncy lo tliscuss thts muth:r
**at~-··------­** (.chOoS,c a1\ FAA oflkc from the attachcd...ll.ill. c. [ 1 Woolpert hereby requests an in-person informal coniCrence \\'ilh an fAA atto.rney to discuss Lhis maHer at

**-,---,;c~----:::-:;:-c--;c .**  Woolpe-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.: 2013EA250068 3. [ }WooiJ1Crt hereby submits evidence anJ information. Ocmonstroting

**th~11** a violation ofthe regulations did notoccur us alleged or that the amount ofthi.': 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** orderwill he issllL-d in the mnoum sci fOrth in the Nolicc ofProposed 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. orthat 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 ofthe pwpos.cd ;unounL This requestCOflstiiutcs Woolpen's agrcelll\llll that ifthis 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 WoolperfS AGREEt.;IENT THAT IT HAS WAIVED lTS RIGHT TOA llcARING.

8. 1 1 Wootpert hereby requests a hearing in accordance with Subpart 0 ofPart \3 ofthe Fcdl':ntl Avintion Reg11l111ions {14 CPR 13. Subp11rt 0)\\·ltb thl.': un<krstaJi<Jing. that aComplaintwill befikd. \Voo-lpert

**rl.':quc~ts** that the hearing be hdd in

___ -·-..**--~·---·** Woolpert 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 GREATLAKES

**REGIO~** fedcml Avicltion Adminlstr<UioJl Fcdenil Aviation Administration O!licc ofthe 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 ofthe Regional Counsel tAS0-7) Northwest Mountain Region Heai.lquartcrs Somhcm Region J-Jeadquartcrs 1601 Lind Avenue, SW. 170I Cohunbia A venue, Room 530 Renton. \VA 98055-405-6 Co-llege Pnrk. GA 30337 WESTER'l-I'ACIFTC RECIO:\ F,\,\ liEAilQl'AilTERS Federal Aviation Administration Feckml1\viation Administnttiun Oll:icc oftl1c Regional Counsel (AWP·7} OOice ofthe ChiefCounsel

**\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! ofthe 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.! ofthe Regional Counsel

**(ANE~i)** New t::ngland Region

**H~adquartL>rs** 12 Nc\Y Englmld Executive Park, Room 311 BurliTH?.ton. l\-IA 01803 SOUTHWESTRF.GIO:'\ Federal Aviation Administration Ollicc ofth.:

**R~gional** Counsd (ASW·7) SoHthwcst Region 1-lcndquaru:rs 260I

**~4-cachmn** Boulevard Ft. Worth, TX 76193-0007 El!ROPE, AFRICA & )JlllDLf: EAST FANAmerican Emtmssy Office ofthe 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. 20l3EA250068 DearMr. Kohlmeyer: Please be advised that this otlice represents Woolpert, Inc. regarding ihe above-referenced Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty dated June 18, 2014. As such, kindly direct all future correspondence concemingthis 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, !viGregmyS. Winton Gregory S. Winton
cc: Woolpert, Inc.

# Exhibit 3

# ~ U

B. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration July 1,2014 Gregory S. Winton, Esq. The Aviation LawFinn Eastern Region Regional Counsel Telephone 718-553-3285 Facsimile: 718-995-5699

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Armapolis_ MD 21401 1Aviation 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. Iffor 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 FAAEasternRegion, AEA-7 1AviationPlaza, Room 561 Jamaica, NY 11434 Re: Woolpert, Inc. FAA DocketNo. 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 positionthatthe items listed in paragraph 3 ofthe Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty (NOPCP) (i.e., Leica Computer Processor Unit, model SC70; Leica camera controller, model ALS CC105; Leica operation controller, model OC52; Leicacamera, model RC30; Lidar scanner, modelLS70-LP; and Power Bright400-watt power inverter, model ML400-24), were not "installed on the aircraft withoutthe required FAA approvals and maintenance/alteration entries," as alleged. Infact, the items identified merely consist ofnon-essential, non-required portable electronic devices that were notpermanently installed in the aircraft. Therefore, since no maintenance or alteration was performedto carry the portable electronic devices onboardthe aircraft, no FAA approvals and/or maintenance/alteration entries were required for the flight operation conductedpursuantto 14 C.F.R. part 91. As you are aware, pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 1.1, the termMaintenance means inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement ofparts, but excludes preventive maintenance. Since the non-essential, non-required portable electronic devices were not permanently installed inthe aircraft, butmerely carried on board, my client did not perform any inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, or replacement ofparts, with respect to the portable equipment. Accordingly, no maintenance was performed and therefore, no record entries were required. Nevertheless, the NOPCP alleges that (i) the aircraft was "notin 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" inviolation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.403(b) (See Paragraphs 5 and (b)); (iii) Woolpert "operated an aircraft thathadundergone maintenance, preventative maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration whenithad not been approved for return to service" inviolation of 14 C.F.R. 

### § 91.407(a)(l) (See Paragraphs 6 and (c)); and (iv) Woolpert "operated an aircraft thathad undergone maintenance, preventative maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration" whenthe required record entry had notbeenmade in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(2) (See Paragraphs 7 and (d)).Daniel P. Kohlmeyer August 29, 2014 Page 2 Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. §43.9, withregardto Maintenance recordentries, eachperson who maintains, performs preventive maintenance, rebuilds, or alters an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or componentpart shall make an entry inthe maintenance record ofthat equipment. However, since Woolpert did notmaintain, performpreventive maintenance, rebuild, or alter the subject aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component, withregard to the non-essential, non-requiredportable electronic devices that were merely carried onboardthe aircraft, no maintenance record entries were required. Withregard 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 settledthat although airworthiness is not defined inthe regulations, Board precedenthas established atwo-parttest to determine whether an aircraft is airworthy. Specifically, whenthe Administrator alleges that an operator has violated 14 C.F.R. 

### § 91.7(a), the Board has long heldthatthe standard for airworthiness consists oftwo prongs: (I) whetherthe aircraft conforms to its type certificate and applicable Airworthiness Directives; and (2) whether the aircraft is in a conditionfor safe operation."Administrator v. Surratt and Walker, NTSB Order No. EA-5514 at 16-17 (2010) citing Administrator v. Doppes, 5NTSB 50, 52 n.6 (1985); see alsoAdministratorv. Anderson, NTSB OrderNo. EA-3976 at 2 (1993); Administratorv. Nielsen, NTSB Order No. EA-3755 at 4 (1992); Administratorv. Copsey, 7 NTSB 1316, 1317 (1991). Inthe present case, since the portable electronic devices were merely carried on boardthe aircraft, their presence did not affect (1) whether the aircraft conformedto itstype certificate; or (2) whetherthe aircraftwas ina condition for safe operation. Therefore, the aircraft was airworthy. Lastly, it shouldbe noted that since Woolpert was not operating the aircraft pursuantto an air carrier operating certificate, or under instrument flight rules (IFR), the portable electronic devices, which did not cause interference withthe navigation or communication system ofthe aircraft, were permissible pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 91.21. Infact, the portable electronic devices metthe safety standards ofthe Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics 1(i.e., RTCA D0/160). Baseduponthe above, the Administrator clearly lacks any basis in fact and lawto continue the prosecution of this matter. Therefore, I respectfully requestthatthis matterbe closed without further action. Inthe meantime, ifyou have any questions please do nothesitate to contact me. Thankyou in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Is/Gregory 

### S. Winton Gregory S. Winton
cc: Woolpert, Inc.

1 RTCA, Inc. (known as Radio Technical Commissionfor Aeronautics) is a US volunteer organizationthat develops technical guidance for use by governmentregulatory authorities andby industry. 

### Ithas over 200 committees and overall acts as an advisory body to the FAA. RTCA is sponsored as a FederalAdvisory Committeeby the Federal Aviation Administration. Guidance documents are developed and drafted by Special Committee (SC) and are based on a consensus developed withinthe SC chargedwithresponsibility for the given document. The guidance documents are based on experttechnical opinion.

# Exhibit 5U.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, Woolpert LLC, by and through undersigned counsel pursuantto 14 C.P.R. § 13.16, and hereby requests a hearing concerning the allegations raised in the Complainant's Notice ofProposed 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 ofProposed 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. ThsrAviationLaw Firm .1997 Annapolis Exchange Park-way ··suite 300

Annapolis, Maryland 2140I Tel: (301) 294-8550 Fax: (866) 568-9886 Atrorney filr Respondent**~!?RI!fiCf).Tj::_QF** SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date servedby regularU.S. mail, postage prepaid, an original and one (1) copy ofthe foregoing Request for Hearing addressed to: Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2014 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 And, further, thatI have this date served by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, a copy ofthe 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 6Greg, I reviewed your letterwith flight standards and our opinion on the case is still the same. Do you have a settlement offerto 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 ifyou have any questions or require additional information. Regards, Greg PLEASE NOTE THE NEW MAILING ADDRESS EFFECTIVEJULY 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
OnAug 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) 741-5958Daniei.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 aboutthe other non-essential, non-required portable electronic devices that were carried aboard the aircraft during a part 91, daytime flight conducted undervisual 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-AIRLAW 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-referencedNotice ofProposed 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 ofthe status ofthis matter? Regards, Greg Gregory S. Winton, Esq. The Aviation LawFirm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 Toll free: 1-877-4-AIRLAW 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, regardingthe above-referenced Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty. What is the status ofthis 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-AIRLAW 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 nextweek. 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 ofProposed Civil Penalty issued to my client, Woolpert. What is the status ofthis matter? Regards, Greg Gregory S. Winton, Esq. The Aviation Law Firm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 2140I Toll free: 1-877-4-AIRLAWLocal: (301) 294-8550 Cell: (301) 529-5660 Fax: (301) 294-2525 

### Fax: (866) 568-9886
OnFeb 6, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Gregory Winton <greg(il)aviationlawexperts.com> wrote:

Dan & Brendan: I hope thatyou are both doing well. This will serve as a follow-up to my email below dated January 16,2015,regarding the Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty issued to my client, Woolpert. What is the status ofthis 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-AIRLAW Local: (301) 294-8550 Cell: (301) 529-5660 Fax: (301) 294-2525 

### Fax: (866) 568-9886 Beginforwarded 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 (AC) issued onDecember 15,2014,regarding airworthiness approval ofLIDAR. As you can see in appendixB, "since the [LIDAR]laserequipment 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 notunairworthy. Kindly withdraw the Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty. Regards, Greg Gregory S. Winton, Esq. The Aviation LawFirm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 Toll free: 1-877-4-AIRLAW Local: (301) 294-8550 Cell: (301) 529-5660 Fax: (301) 294-2525 

### Fax: (866) 568-9886
<AC 20-183 -LaserAirworthiness Installation Guidance- AC _20-183.pdf> <AC 20-168 non required equipment copy.pdf> <NOPCP.pdf>

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifY thatI have this date servedby regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, an original and one (1) copy ofthe foregoing ANSWER TO THE FAA'S MOTION TO DISMISS RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FORHEARING PURSUANT TO 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.16 addressed to: Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur WrightBuilding, Suite 2014 Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 And, further, that I havethis date servedbyregular 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 AviationAdministration Regional Counsel's Office, AEA-7 1AviationPlaza, Room 561 Jamaica, NY 11434 Tel: 718 553-3266 Fax: 718 533-5699 COURTESY COPY Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Ave, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 March 25, 2015

R S. WINTON, ESQ.

**Th~:A** 

### tion LawFirm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Tel: (301) 294-8550 Fax: (866) 568-9886 Attorney for Respondent