u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION R E c E 'v ED 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION MAY _ 5 2014 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

AVIONICS MASTERS, INC., 

Respondent. 

HEARING DOCKET 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0288 

FAA Case No. 2012S0190209 

Judge Sullivan 

SUPPLEMENT ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Pursuant to the Judge's April 16, 2014 Order Setting Deadline for Filing Amended 

Complaint and Supplemental Materials, the FAA hereby files supplemental evidence in support 

of the proposed sanction of $7,1501 In particular, attached is the declaration of David Dunn 

concerning the sanction selection process and the sanction guidance applicable in this case . 

. j"'. 

Respectfully submitted thisL I( day of April, 2014. 

Attorney 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

I The ordered copy of the Amended Complaint with changes marked is' bbr.g filed separately. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that a copy of the foregoing Supplement on Motion for Summary Judgment has 

been sent this date by the following methods: 

original and one copy via certified mail: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Attention:Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

one copy via certified mail: 

Mohammad Ahmed Faruqui, Esq. 

Trial Lawyers Building 

633 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 4R 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 

Honorable Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

Date 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

AVIONICS MASTERS, INC., 

Respondent. 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0288 

FAA Case No. 2012S0190209 

Judge Sullivan 

DECLARATION OF DAVID DUNN 

David Dunn declares the following upon information and belief: 

1. I am over the age of 18 and I understand the obligations of an oath. 

2. I am currently employed with the Federal Aviation Administration as a Regional 

Specialist at the Southern Regional Office in College Park, Georgia. 

3. Part of my duties as a Regional Specialist include reviewing Enforcement Investigative 

Reports (EIRs) and recommending an appropriate sanction in cases where legal action is 

warranted. 

4. In determining an appropriate sanction, we must determine the number of acts of 

violation. In this case, there is one act of violation, the improper maintenance by a repair station 

on a directional gyro that was beyond its ratings. 

5. Having determined the nature and quantity of the acts of violation, we identifY the 

applicable recommendation from the sanction guidance table contained in Appendix B ofF AA 

Order 2150.3B or, if there is no directly applicable entry, the most applicable entry. In this case 

there is a directly applicable entry in Figure B-3-b(13), which concerns a repair station 

"Maintaining or altering an airframe, powerplant, propeller, instrument, radio, or accessory for 

which the repair station is not rated." The guidance provided is for a Maximum range civil 

penalty, or for a suspension or revocation of the repair station's air agency certificate. 

6. Appendix B also identifies what the Maximum (or Moderate or Minimum) penalty range 

is for different types of violators. Respondent in this case is a small business and is an air agency 

(repair station). The Maximum penalty range is $7,150 to $11,000. 

GOVERNMENT 

EXHIBIT 

L 
7. According to Chapter 7 of Order 2150.3B, the default sanction is at the midpoint of the 

applicable range, a point which assumes a first-time violator and an inadvertent violation. In this 

case, the midpoint would be $9,075. 

8. Mitigating and aggravating factors can then be applied to adjust the penalty within the 

range or, in rare cases, outside of the range. In this case, the sanction selected of $7,150 is at the 

bottom of the applicable penalty range. 

Further declarant sayeth naught. 

I, David Dunn, declare thi~'aay of April, 2014, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, under 

penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the above statements are true and 

correct.