SERVED: JULY 16,2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In The Matter Of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AVIATION ENGINEERING 

CONSULTANTS, INC. 

Respondent 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0284 

Case No. 2012CE440003 

ORDER GRANTING THE RESPONDENT'S 

MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT IN PART, 

AND GRANTING/DENYING OTHER RELIEF 

On April22, 2013, the Respondent, Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc., 

("Respondent") filed a Request for Hearing. 

On May 7, 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration's Regional Counsel for the Central 

Region ("FAA") filed its Complaint. 

On June 3, 2013, the Respondent filed a Motion for More Definite Statement ("Motion") 

alleging that the lack of information in the Complaint would hinder the_ preparation of an answer 

and the defense of its cause. 

On June 10, 2013, the FAA filed Complainant's Response in Opposition to Respondent's 

Motion for More Definite Statement fResponse"). 

BRIEF DISCUSSION: 

Section 13.208(c) of the Rules of Practice in FAA civil penalty actions, 14 C.F.R. Part 

13, subpart G, provides, "A complaint shall set forth the facts alleged, any regulation allegedly 

violated by the respondent, and the proposed civil penalty in sufficient detail to provide notice of 

any factual or legal allegation and proposed civil penalty." 14 C.F.R. § 13.208(c). 

~!: ;, :~ .-"" 
The Respondent's Motion asserts that the FAA's Complaint fails to include essential 

factual allegations to support the alleged violation of 14 C.F.R. § 21.303(a). (Mot. 1.) In 

response, the FAA asserts that the Respondent has ample informal notice of the facts involved in 

this case, based on settlement discussions and other communications preceding the filing of the 

Complaint. In addition, the FAA argues that the Respondent's failure to request discovery, 

and/or to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, demonstrates that the Respondent 

has sufficient information to formulate an answer to the Complaint. (Resp. 6.) 

Before reaching the parties' dispute regarding what factual allegations are necessary to 

support the FAA's May 7, 2013 Complaint, and how those factual allegations need be plead, the 

legal allegation in the Complaint must be identified. 

The FAA's May 7, 2013 Complaint asserts the following: 

By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated Section 

21.303(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations which provides that, except as 

provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may produce a modification 

or replacement part for sale for installation on a type certificated product unless it 

is produced pursuant to a Parts Manufacturer Approval issued under this subpart 

[Title 14 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 21.303(a)]. 

(Compl. 2 (brackets in original).) 

However, the legal language cited in the FAA's May 7, 2013 Complaint is not the 

regulatory language contained in Section 21.303(a). Instead, Section 21.303(a) states the 

following (in part): 

The applicant for a PMA must apply in a form and manner prescribed by the 

FAA, and include the following: 

(1) The identity of the product on which the article is to be installed. 

(2) The name and address of the manufacturing facilities at which these articles 

· are to be manufactured. 

(3) The design of the article, which consists of--- [remaining regulatory 

language omitted herein]. 

Page 2 of 5 
In essence, the FAA has cited regulatory language in its May 7, 2013 · Complaint that no 

longer exists. Section 21.303(a) was revised in April2010. As of the effective date of April14, 

2010, Section 21.303(a) no longer contained the language identified and relied upon by the FAA 

in its' May 7, 2013 Complaint. See 74 Fed. Reg. 53368, 53390 (Oct. 16, 2009), effective date 

amended by 75 Fed. Reg. 9095 (Mar. 1, 2010). This April2010 revision occurred approximately 

eight (8) months prior to the alleged December 2010 violation in this case, and approximately 

three (3) years prior to the FAA's filing of the May 7, 2013 Complaint. 

Thus, the FAA's Complaint fails to set forth the regulation allegedly violated in sufficient 

detail to provide notice of the legal allegation. It is unclear whether the FAA is alleging a 

violation of 14 C.F .R. § 21.303( a) as effective on all dates stated in the Complaint; or a violation 

of 14 C.F.R. § 2l.9(a), which is a revision of the former requirements in 14 C.P.R.§ 21.303(a) 

and (b), see 74 Fed. Reg. 53368, 53373; or of an as yet unidentified regulation that contains the 

language cited in the Complaint - if such a regulation exists. 

The Respondent has requested that the FAA plead with specificity six detailed factual 

allegations. (Mot. 1.) In light of the deficient legal citation cited in the Complaint, it is 

impossible to determine at this time the specific factual allegations necessary to support the 

Complaint. Thus, the Respondent's Motion should first be granted in part, to allow the FAA to 

correct the deficient legal citation and any alleged factual support relevant to the actual legal 

citation that the FAA believes the Respondent has violated. 

However, the FAA should be mindful, when preparing its more definite statement (or 

amended complaint), that informal conferences and private settlement discussions between the 

parties prior to the filing of a complaint in no way alleviates the FAA's responsibility to adhere 

to the pleading requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 13.208(c). Notice pleading, as the name suggests, 

requires actual notice in the pleading. A proper pleading informs not only the named 

Respondent, but also the administrative court and members ofthe public. See, Steven BaickerMcKee, et.al, Federal Civil Rules Handbook, West Publishing (2012)(Rule 12(e)-Motion for 

More Definite Statement)(Both the court and the litigants are entitled to know, at the pleading 

stage, who is being sued, why, and for what), See also, In re Delaware Skyways, LLC, FAA 

Page 3 of 5 
,r 

Order 2005-6 at 7 (Mar. 8, 2005) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) cited as additional guidance in reviewing 

sufficiency of complaint filed in an administrative proceeding). 

Proper pleading, which includes pleading sufficient factual allegations in support of the 

legal citation, does not place a heavy burden on the FAA or any complaining party that seeks 

formal relief. In an administrative proceeding, a complaint must provide sufficient information 

so that the respondent 'understood the issue' and 'was afforded full opportunity' to justify its 

conduct during the course of the litigation."' Aloha Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd, 598 

F.2d 250, 262 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (quoting NLRB v. Mackey Radio & Tel. Co., 304 U.S. 333, 350 

(1938)). 

It is well-established that a pleading is not a substitute for discovery. Likewise, discovery 

is not a S\lbstitute for an insufficient complaint. A sufficient complaint must be filed before a 

respondent is tasked with the burden of discovery. See, Steven Baicker-McKee, et.al, Federal 

Civil Rules Handbook, West Publishing (2012)(Rule 12(e)-Motion for More Definite 

Statement)(when the pleading's "meaning is unclear, the proper remedy is a motion for a more 

definite statement"). 

Based on the forgoing, and after reviewing all relevant caselaw, statutory authority, 

regulations, other authorities, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Respondent's Motion for More Definite Statement is granted in part. 

2. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(f)(3)(i), the FAA shall file a more definite statement of 

the legal allegation contained in the Complaint, and also provide any alleged facts 

supporting that legal allegation, or file an amended complaint providing the same, no 

later than fifteen (15) days after the service date of this Order (i.e., on or before July 31, 

2013). 

. Page 4 of 5 
·' 

3. The Respondent's remaining part of the Motion for More Definite Statement, in 

which the Respondent specifically requested either clarification on six ( 6) different 

factual matters or an order striking the allegations, is reserved. 

4. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(a), no later than thirty (30) days after the FAA serves 

the more definite statement (or amended complaint), the Respondent shall file either a 

written answer, or a renewed motion for reliefto the FAA's supplemental or amended 

Complaint (i.e., on or before August 30, 2013). 

5. Should the Respondent file an Answer to the FAA's more definite statement (or 

amended complaint), then the Respondent's Answer will be deemed a waiver of part 

of the Respondent's motion herein, that was reserved pending supplemental filing, 

regarding the sufficiency of the FAA's supplemental pleading. 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 5 of 5 
•' 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mark G. Camacho, 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

ONE COPY 

Senior Enforcement Attorney, Central Region, ACE-7 

Room 506, DOT Building 

901 Locust St. 

Kansas, MO 64106-2641 

TEL: 816-329-3765 

FAX: 816-329-3771 

Douglas J. Barnard, Esq., 

Respondent's Counsel 

Mr. Karnran Rouhani 

Respondent 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0284 

14695 Airport Parkway, 2nd Floor 

Clearwater, FL 33762 

Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc 

2750 Sunset Point Road 

TEL: 727-259-0224 

FAX: 727-259-0223 

Judge J. E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Clearwater, FL 33759 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

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