## 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-2010-0194 ) -------------)
INITIAL DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RICHARD C. GOODWIN**~:** 1) Respondentviolated 14 C.F.R. §§145.5(a) and 145.201(b) as cbarged in the Complaint; 2) Respondentis 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 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs") (Tr. 56). The Complaint of Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant," "FAA," or "the agency") originated in an agency inspection ofthe maintenance records of a Gulfstream model G-1159B aircraft on December 4,2007. "
II. The Complaint The FAA's inspection of December4, 2007 revealed, according to the Complaint, that Respondent performed maintenance on the named Gulfstream aircraft and approved itfor 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 ofthe 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. Ifind 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$40.700 as Complainant requested.
B. The Evidence Inspectors Shearrill and McGinnis worked out ofthe Van Nuys. CA Flight Standards District Office ("FSDon). Inspector Shearrill showed that Respondent's request for certification as a Part 145 repair station had asked for an airframe rating limited to the aircraft listed on its operations specifications ("op specs"). Those aircraft did not include the Gulfstream G-1159B (Exhs. C-1 and C-2; Tr. 22-26.32-33.41-43). Inspector McGinnis was Respondent's principal maintenance inspector ("PMI") during the period underexamination (Tr. 53). He testified that his investigation revealed that on ten occasions, Intertech performed maintenance on a Gulfstream G-1159B aircraft and approved itfor return to service without proper ratings (Exh. C-5; Tr. 58-64. 71). Respondent. McGinnis further testified. admitted the infractions. An Intertech offidal wrote inspector McGinnis, in response to his Letter of Investigation on the agency's behalf, that Intertech had "overlooked" its lack ofproper qualifications on the occasions cited (Exh. C-6; Tr. 72-73).
Intertech later applied to add the G-1159B aircraft to its ratings. However. its application was filed afterthe purported maintenance under review today (Tr. 74-75; Exh. C-7).
I find and conclude that Respondent violated the FARs**a$~.¢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 clearthat 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 airtransportation 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 ofcompliance (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 ofthe circumstances. Respondent, a repair station with a spotty compliance history, on ten occasions permitted aircraft to operate after maintenance performance " withoutthe proper ratings. It introduced an unacceptable risk to the safety of aircraft on each ofthese occasions

- including a significant risk of injury orworse (Tr. 77). The ciyil penalty I assess, Ifind, also will act as an appropriate deterrent to Respondent and to other repair stations. It will fulfill the statutory purpose. 1

1At Complainant'srequest, Itookjudicialnotice ofthe FAA's penalty guidelines, FAA Orders 2150.3A and, as amendedeffective October 1,2007,FAA Order2150.3B. See 72 Fed.Reg. 5585J (October I, 2007). They weremarked atExhibits C-8 and C-9, respectively. Tr. 79-80. FAA On;!ei2150.3B also may befound atwww.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 maybe appealed to the Administrator oftheFAA. The notice ofappeal mustconform to sections 13.210, 13.211(e) and 13.233 oftheRules ofPractice, whichrequire that a notice ofappeal 1) be filed notlaterthan 10 days (plus an additional.five days ifmailed) from the service date ofthis decision, and 2)beperfected with a writtenbrieformemorandumnot laterthan 50 days (plus an additional five, if mailed) from the service date ofthis decision. Thenotice ofappeal and brieformemorandum must either be a) mailed to the FederalAviation Admiulstration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: HearingDocketClerk, AGC-430, Wilbur WrightBuilding-Suite2WlOOO, orb) delivered personally orvia expedited courier serviceto the FederalAviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2WlOOO, Washington, D.C. 20591, Attn:.Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. A copy ofthenotice ofappeal andbrieformemorandum also mus,Th,li" sentto agency counsel. Service upon the presidingjudgeis optional.**~** " , 

### ,FAADocket 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 SchultzLaw Firm 32123 Lindero CanyonRoad, 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 oftheRegional Counsel Western-Pacific Region, AWP-7 Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7128 FAX: 310-725-6816 

### ONE COpy

TheHonorable Richard C. Goodwin,AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. EastBuilding Ground Floor, RoomE12-320 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 inperson orby e)qJedited courier, u;;e fue following address: HearingDocket, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.**W.;~ilbnr** WrightBuilding

- Room 2014, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430.