SERVEDMAY 3,2011 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

) 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ) 

) 

Complainant, ) FAA DOCKET NO. CP10WP0003 

) 

v. ) (Civil Penalty Action) 

) 

INTERTECH OVERLOAD, INC. ) 

) 

Respondent. ) DMS No. F AA-201 0-0194 

) 

-------------) 

INITIAL DECISION 

OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RICHARD C. GOODWIN 

~: 1) Respondent violated 14 C.F.R. §§145.5(a) and 145.201(b) as cbarged in the 

Complaint; 

2) Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of $40,700. 

I. Background 

Respondent Intertech Overload, Inc. ("Intertech" or "Respondent") is a 

repair station in Van Nuys, CA, which is certificated under Part 145 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations ("FARs") (Tr. 56). The Complaint of Complainant Federal 

Aviation Administration ("Complainant," "FAA," or "the agency") originated in an 

agency inspection of the maintenance records of a Gulfstream model G-1159B 

aircraft on December 4,2007. " 

II. The Complaint 

The FAA's inspection of December 4, 2007 revealed, according to the 

Complaint, that Respondent performed maintenance on the named Gulfstream 

aircraft and approved it for return to service on ten listed occasions between 

January 6 and November 30, 2007. The agency charges that Respondent 

accomplished this maintenance while lacking the requisite rating. . 

.-
2 

The Complaint cllarges that. loy this conduct, Respondent violatecllwQ 

provisions of the FARS::14 C.F.R. §145.5(a), which states that no person may 

operate as a ceiiificated repair station without, or in violation of. its certificate or 

ratings issued; and 14 C.F.R. §145.201(b). which prohibits a certificated repair 

station from maintaining or altering an atiicle for which it is not rated. The 

agency requests a total civil penalty of $40.700. Respondent denied the 

charges. 

III. DisclI.ssion 

A. Background and Conclusions 

I held a hearing on March 7. 2011. in Long Beach. CA. Respondent 

failed to appear. Complainant put on its case. Two witnesses testified. FAA 

inspectors Cotry Shearrill and Arvie McGinnis. The agency introduced nine 

exhibits. 

I find that Complainant proved its case. I find and conclude that the 

witness testimony and documentary evidence showed that Respondent violated 

14 C.F.R. §145.5(a) and 145.201 (b) as charged. I will assess a civil penalty 

agajnst Respondent of $40.700 as Complainant requested. 

B. The Evidence 

Inspectors Shearrill and McGinnis worked out of the Van Nuys. CA Flight 

Standards District Office ("FSDon). Inspector Shearrill showed that 

Respondent's request for certification as a Part 145 repair station had asked for 

an airframe rating limited to the aircraft listed on its operations specifications ("op 

specs"). Those aircraft did not include the Gulfstream G-1159B (Exhs. C-1 and 

C-2; Tr. 22-26.32-33.41-43). 

Inspector McGinnis was Respondent's principal maintenance inspector 

("PMI") during the period under examination (Tr. 53). He testified that his 

investigation revealed that on ten occasions, Intertech performed maintenance 

on a Gulfstream G-1159B aircraft and approved it for return to service without 

proper ratings (Exh. C-5; Tr. 58-64. 71). Respondent. McGinnis further testified. 

admitted the infractions. An Intertech offidal wrote inspector McGinnis, in 

response to his Letter of Investigation on the agency's behalf, that Intertech had 

"overlooked" its lack of proper qualifications on the occasions cited (Exh. C-6; Tr. 

72-73). 

Intertech later applied to add the G-1159B aircraft to its ratings. However. 

its application was filed after the purported maintenance under review today (Tr. 

74-75; Exh. C-7). 

I find and conclude that Respondent violated the FARs a$~.¢harged. 

'. 
3 

1. Section 145.5(a) 

Section 145.5(a) prohibits any person from operating as a certificated 

repair station without, or in violation of, its certificate or ratings issued. The 

evidence demonstrated that Intertech violated this provision. 

2. Section 145.201(b) 

Complainant showed that, in performing maintenance for which it was not 

rated, Respondent violated this FAR as well. 

IV. Penalty 

Complainant seeks a civil penalty against Respondent of $40,700. I will 

assess a civil penalty in that amount. 

A penalty assessment in a case such as this must weigh a respondent's 

behavior and evaluate its effect. It is clear that a repair station performing 

maintenance for which it is not rated jeopardizes the safety of air transportation. 

A repair station accomplishing repairs without proper certification plainly has 

introduced unacceptable risks into aircraft operations (Tr. 46-47). It has violated 

the trust implicitly placed by the flying public in the air transportation system that 

such transportation will operate with due regard for safety (Tr. 76-77). 

Respondent permitted this conduct to occur on ten occasions. Such behavior 

warrants significant punishment. 

Inspector McGinnis also testified that Respondent has struggled with 

compliance. Numerous times agency inspections have revealed discrepancies, 

he stated, and the carrier has required substantial assistance in meeting 

standards of compliance (Tr. 78). This constitutes an aggravating factor in the 

calculus. 

Against this background, I find that an assessment of $40,700 is 

appropriate. The levy is substantial, but it is warranted by the totality of the 

circumstances. Respondent, a repair station with a spotty compliance history, 

on ten occasions permitted aircraft to operate after maintenance performance " 

without the proper ratings. It introduced an unacceptable risk to the safety of 

aircraft on each of these occasions - including a significant risk of injury or worse 

(Tr. 77). The ciyil penalty I assess, I find, also will act as an appropriate deterrent 

to Respondent and to other repair stations. It will fulfill the statutory purpose.1 

1 At Complainant's request, Itookjudicial notice of the FAA's penalty guidelines, FAA Orders 2150.3A 

and, as amended effective October 1,2007, FAA Order 2150.3B. See 72 Fed.Reg. 5585J (October I, 

2007). They were marked at Exhibits C-8 and C-9, respectively. Tr. 79-80. FAA On;!ei 2150.3B also may 

be found at www.airweb.faa.gov. \~ .. 
4 

01'1 the basis fo, the foregoing, ~ hereby assess a civil penalty or $40,700 

against Respondent rnteliecll Overload, inc. for violations of 14 C.f.R 

§145.5(a) and 14 C.f. R §145.201(b).2 

Attachment - Service List 

2 This decision may be appealed to the Administrator of the FAA. The notice of appeal must conform to 

sections 13.210, 13.211(e) and 13.233 of the Rules of Practice, which require that a notice of appeal 1) be 

filed not later than 10 days (plus an additional. five days if mailed) from the service date of this decision, 

and 2) be perfected with a written brief or memorandum not later than 50 days (plus an additional five, if 

mailed) from the service date of this decision. The notice of appeal and brief or memorandum must either 

be a) mailed to the Federal Aviation Admiulstration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 

20591, Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WlOOO, or b) delivered 

personally or via expedited courier service to the Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WlOOO, Washington, D.C. 20591, Attn:.Hearing Docket 

Clerk, AGC-430. A copy of the notice of appeal and brief or memorandum also mus,Th,li" sent to agency 

counsel. Service upon the presiding judge is optional. ~ " 

, 

, 
FAA Docket No. CP10WP0003 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2Wl0001 

William H. Schultz, Respondent's Counsel 

Schultz Law Firm 

32123 Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 203 

Westlake Village, CA 91361-5412 

TEL: 818-901-1919 

FAX: 818-901-1996 

Dean Cambe, Sr., President 

Intertech Overload, Inc., Respondent 

7701 Woodley Avenue 

Van Nuys, CA 91406 

Courtney Adolph, Complainant's Counsel 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, A WP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7128 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

ONE COpy 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by e)qJedited courier, u;;e fue following address: 

Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W.;~ilbnr Wright Building - Room 

2014, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.