In the Matter of: ,.. :·. -~ 

:~ :.~ LJ 

AVIATION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 

FDMS No: FAA-2013-0284 

FAA Docket No: (to be assigned) 

Judge: J. E. Sullivan 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

COMES NOW the Complainant in this matter, the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA), by and through its Regional Counsel for the Central Region, and pursuant to Section 

13.218(d) ofthe Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions (14 C.F.R. Section 13.201 et 

seq.), hereby files its response in opposition to Respondent's motion for a more definite 

statement. In support hereof, the undersigned states as follows. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

1. The Respondent Company has been represented continuously throughout all phases of the 

pre/post-Complaint proceedings by able and competent counsel; initially by Richard L. Alford, 

Esq., Clearwater, Florida, and most recently, by Douglas J. Barnard, Esq., Clearwater, Florida. 

2. A Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty (NPCP) was served on the president ofthe 

Respondent Company, Mr. Kamran Rouhani, on March 28,2012, via certified mail by Mary 

Ellen Loftus, former FAA Directorate Counsel for the Small Airplane Directorate, Central 

Region, Kansas City, Missouri. It was received on March 30, 2012. 

3. On May 20,2012, the Respondent's president submitted a Reply Form (FAA CE Form 

2150-16-1) in response to the NPCP. Mr. Rouhani requested to participate in an in-person 

informal conference (IC) with FAA counsel to be held at the FAA's "Regional Office" in Tampa, 

Florida. Mr. Rouhani also identified Richard L. Alford, Esq., as counsreeiV~n 

Company. RE 

JUN 1 7 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 
4. By letter dated June 7, 2012, Ms. Loftus advised Mr. Alford that the FAA does not have a 

Regional Office in Tampa, Florida. Ms. Loftus suggested, as an alternative, the requested IC be 

held by telephone sometime during July or August 2012, and asked for the submission of 

available dates for those two months. 

5. On September 7, 2012, the parties agreed, through counsel, to hold the IC by telephone 

on October 1, 2012, at 10:00 am central time (11:00 am eastern time). 

6. On October 1, 2012, Mr. Rouhani advised that he could not make the IC and that it would 

have to be rescheduled. 

7. On November 5, 2012, the parties agreed, through counsel, to hold the ICon December 6, 

2012, at 2:15pm central time (3:15pm eastern time). 

8. On December 6, 2012, an IC was held at the appointed time. AECI was represented by its 

president, Mr. Kamran Rouhani, Mr. John Bugle, an AECI employee, and its legal counsel, 

Richard L. Alford, Esq. The FAA was represented by its legal counsel, Ms. Mary Ellen Loftus, 

and Ms. Diane Millam, a Technical & Program Management Specialist with the Small Airplane 

Directorate's Kansas City Manufacturing Inspection District Office. 

9. Ms. Loftus' case file notes reflect that incident to the IC held on December 6, 2012, the 

parties explored and discussed openly and fully all the known facts of the case, including the 

positions taken by each party relative to the alleged violations set out in the NPCP, the same 

allegations now found in the Complaint filed in the instant case. 

10. By letter dated December 7, 2012, Ms. Loftus submitted a settlement offer to AECI's 

legal counsel, Mr. Alford, providing the Respondent Company until March 1, 2013, to accept the 

offer by making a payment by that date to an address provided for use by AECI. 

11. On December 31,2012, Ms. Loftus retired from the FAA after 30 year of federal 

government service. 

2 
12. AECI did not accept Ms. Loftus' settlement offer in that no payment was received from 

AECI by the FAA by March 1, 2013. 

13. On March 11, 2013, the undersigned was assigned the case file involving the Respondent 

Company. 

14. During the second week of March 2013, the undersigned spoke with AECI's legal 

counsel, Mr. Alford, by telephone regarding his client, the pending case, and Ms. Loftus' 

settlement offer set out in her December 7, 2012, letter. 

15. By letter dated March 15,2013, to Mr. Alford, the undersigned recapped the conversation 

between the parties' legal counsel, and formally resubmitted the previous settlement offer made 

by Ms. Loftus to AECI. The Respondent Company was provided a second opportunity until 

close of business March 22, 2013, to accept or reject the offer. The subject two-page letter was 

sent to Mr. Alford's office via facsimile transmission on March 15, 2013. 

16. On March 18, 2013, the undersigned received a call from Mr. Douglas J. Barnard, Esq. 

Mr. Barnard informed the undersigned that AECI had retained him as new legal counsel in this 

case. The undersigned's case file notes reflect that Mr. Barnard stated the parties reached a 

settlement for the amount set out in Ms. Loftus' letter of December 7, 2012, as restated in the 

undersigned's letter to Mr. Alford dated March 15, 2013. An agreement was reached between 

the legal counsel for the parties that AECI's payment for the agreed upon civil penalty amount 

would be in the undersigned's office no later than Friday, April 5, 2013. 

17. On April 5, 2013, AECI did not pay the civil penalty agreed upon as discussed herein. 

18. On April 8, 2013, the undersigned issued a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty 

(FNPCP) to the Respondent Company. 

19. On April22, 2013, the Respondent Company's legal counsel filed an appeal of the 

FNPCP, stating in the letter submitted to Hearing Docket Clerk that the Respondent Company 

3 
" ... denies the allegations in the FAA's final notice of proposed civil penalty ... " A hearing was 

requested in Clearwater, Florida, or alternatively, in Tampa, Florida, or Atlanta, Georgia. 

20. On May 7, 2013, the FAA filed its Complaint in this case with the Hearing Docket Clerk, 

serving a copy upon AECI' s president and legal counsel as well. 

21. By Notice of Assignment of Proceeding served May 23, 2013, this case was assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge J. E. Sullivan by Chief Administrative Law Judge, Ronnie A. Yoder. 

22. On May 29, 2013, the Respondent Company's legal counsel filed a motion for more 

definite statement claiming, in essence, that an answer cannot be filed in the instant case because 

of alleged deficiencies in the Complaint as identified in paragraph 2 of its motion. 

23. No hearing date has been set nor a venue established in this case as of this date. 

ARGUMENT 

1. The Complaint filed in this case constitutes notice pleading. The Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure, while not controlling in this case, are nevertheless illustrative as to what a pleading 

should contain. Rule 8 (a)(2) makes clear a pleading stating a claim for relief must contain a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. The 

Complaint filed in this case meets this standard. 

2. The Respondent Company's position is disingenuous. This is so because the chief 

accountable management official and agent for the Respondent Company, Mr. Karnran Rouhani, 

had notice of the facts involved in this case as alleged in the Complaint as early as October 2011. 

3. On October 31, 2011, Mr. Rouhani, acting on behalf of the Respondent Company, 

informed FAA officials by way of a 4 page detailed e-mail message (copy attached and marked 

Exhibit A), that AECI had, in fact, manufactured the aviation parts in question and provided 

them to the A van tar Repair Station as alleged in the Complaint. The rebuttal presumption clearly 

implied in Mr. Rouhani's statement is that this manufacturing undertaking and production by 

4 
AECI was not done as a gratuitous gesture to Avantar on the part of AECI. Rather, it was 

undertaken by AECI as part of a business transaction between the two businesses. In Exhibit A 

Mr. Rouhani also seeks to provide an exculpatory explanation for the Respondent Company's 

actions. This explanation was rejected by the FAA. 

4. Given the foregoing, relative to the pending motion, for the Respondent Company to now 

advance an argument that it cannot admit, deny or otherwise answer the factual allegations set 

out in the Complaint without a More Definite Statement stretches credulity too far. 

5. A person, such as Mr. Mr. Rouhani, acting on behalf of the Respondent Company, has 

notice of a fact if he knows the fact, has reason to know it, should know it, or has been given 

notification of it. "Notice." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed, 1979, citing Restatement, Second, 

Agency§ 9. 

6. Based on a cursory review of Exhibit A it is axiomatic that the Respondent Company has 

had ample notice of the facts involved in this case. It is amply capable of filing an appropriate 

'Answer to the Complaint without need of a More Definite Statement from the Complainant. 

7. Consequently, in the instant case, the filing of a More Definite Statement by the 

Complainant would contain no surprises and disclose no new facts or information or shed any 

more light on facts that the Respondent Company is not already cognizant of, and has been 

cognizant of, for well over 18 months regarding the allegations involved. The Respondent 

Company cannot now be heard to complain that it is hampered in filing an Answer based on a 

lack of knowledge or understanding of the facts. 

8. In addition to the clear evidence that militates against accepting the proposition that the 

Respondent Company's position as merit, see Exhibit A, it is very telling that the Respondent 

Company never requested a copy ofthe releasable portions ofthe FAA's enforcement file 

through the Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA). If there had been a real need for AECI to 

5 
ascertain facts not otherwise known, a simple FOIA request would have provided data in the 

possession of the FAA that AECI could have reviewed and evaluated. 

9. The submission of a FOIA request is not dependent upon the initiation of litigation by a 

party. Accordingly, such a request could have been submitted over a year ago. But the 

Respondent Company elected to not file such a request. 

10. It is respectfully submitted that the decision to not submit a FOIA request made by the 

Respondent Company is the result of a lack of need for such information. Why? Because the 

facts in question were then, and are today, well known by the Respondent Company and its key 

management officials. Refer to Exhibit A. It therefore cannot complain today that it does not 

have the wherewithal to filer an Answer to the Complaint. 

11. Lastly, no discovery has been filed in this case by the Respondent Company. Section 

13.220(a) ofthe Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions allows any party to initiate 

discovery without the consent or ~pproval of the administrative law judge at any time after the 

filing of a complaint. Section 13 .220( e) of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions 

allows a party to discover any matter that is relevant and relates to the defense of any other party 

including facts known or opinions held by an expert who may be called by a party to testify. The 

Rule also allows a party to discover the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and 

location of any document or other tangible item and the identity and location of any person 

having knowledge of discoverable matter. 

12. Because Section 13.209(a) provides a respondent 30 days to file an answer, the 

Respondent Company, through its legal counsel, could have initiated a simple discovery request, 

via interrogatories. It could have sought answers to the 6 questions delineated in Paragraph 2 of 

its motion, and requested an abbreviated response time from Complainant's counsel. 

6 
13. The Respondent Company could have filed such a discovery request if it truly needed 

access to facts not otherwise known. But no such formal discovery request was filed. 

14. The foregoing notwithstanding, upon closer examination, the Respondent Company's 

motion for a More Definite Statement takes on the appearance of a quasi-discovery effort filed 

prior to the filing of an Answer. The more one looks at the questions framed in Paragraph 2 of 

the Respondent Company's motion, the more easily it is to conclude that they look exactly like 

interrogatories, appropriately found in an initial discovery request, but not so in a motion such as 

the one pending before the law judge. 

15. Clearly, in the instant case, it cannot be said that the Respondent Company will suffer any 

hardship if its motion for a More Definite Statement is denied. Why? Because the Respondent 

Company already knows the factual basis for the allegations found in the Complaint. Refer to 

Exhibit A. Consequently, the equities in this matter call for the motion to be denied. 

WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that an Order issue denying the 

Respondent Company's motion for a More Definite Statement and ordering that it provide an 

Answer to the Complaint forthwith. 

Dated this 7th day of June 2013. 

Respectfully submitted, 

A. L. Haizlip 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

MARK G. CAMACHO 

Mark G. Camacho 

Senior Enforcement Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust Street, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106 

(816) 329-3765 

Fax (816) 329-3771 

ATTORNEY FOR COMPLAINANT 

7 
AVIATION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., FDMS No: FAA-2013-0284, FAA 

Docket No: (to be assigned) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date provided a copy of Complainant's Response in Opposition to 

Respondent's Motion for More Definite Statement to the below named attorney, via facsimile 

transmission, and caused a copy to be placed in the US Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: 

Douglas J. Barnard, Esq. 

14695 Airport Parkway, 2nd Floor 

Clearwater, FL 33762 

FAX: 727-259-0223 

I hereby certify that I have this date provided a copy, via facsimile transmission to the below 

named, and caused to be placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, a copy, addressed to: 

The Honorable J. E. Sullivan 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

I hereby certify that I have this date caused to be placed in the United States mail, postage 

prepaid, the original and a copy addressed to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

Mr. Kamran Rouhani (copy only) 

Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. - Respondent 

2750 Sunset Point Road 

Clearwater, FL 33759 

Dated this ih day of June 2013. 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

MARK G. CAMACHO 

Mark G. Camacho 

Senior Enforcement Attorney 

8 
.. AVIATION ENGINEER(NG CONSULTANTS, INC. (AECI) 

2754 Sunset Point Road, Clearwater, Florida 33759 (Manufacturing Operations Center) 

2159 McMullen Booth Road, Clearwater, Florida 33759 (Administration Office) 

Phone 727-466-1761, Fax 727-466-1762 

October 31,2011 

Subject: Response to FAA Letter File No. 2012CE440003 from Mack Riley, Orlando MIDO 

Manager, Dated October 18, 2011. 

Reference: FAA Letter File No. 2012CE440003 from Mack Riley, Orlando MIDO Manager, 

Dated October 18, 2011. 

Dear Mr. Riley, 

This letter is in response to the referenced letter, which states that the FAA Orlando MIDO 

,Qfnce .ha.s.infQ1Jil?,tiou .thatAYiati.o.n.Engi.n~~Iing .. Co.n.s;uJJ;?J:lt$, .J.nG,JA~Y PI{JJIJtQ!J.~mgg:nt~r 

hinge fitting part number, 80-3931 03-405AEC and outboard hinge fitting part number, 80-

393103-407AEC for sale and installation on U.S. type certificated products without the benefit 

of parts manufacturing approval. The same letter stated that production of the articles without 

production approval is contrary to the requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations. The 

letter also stated that the matter was under investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration. 

Please note that AECI produced the subject parts mentioned above in compliance with Federal 

Regulation 14CFR 21.9(a)(5), and FAA Advisory Circular 20-62D. Below is a brief synopsis of 

the regulatory requirement we considered. 

Federal Regulation 14 CFR 21.9 provides that; 

(a) If a person knows, or should know, that a replacement or modification article is reasonably likely to be installed on 

a type-certificated product, the person may not produce that article unless it is-

(1) Produced under a type certificate; 

(2) Produced under an FAA production approval; 

(3) A -standard part (such as a nut or bolt) manufactured in compliance with a government or established industry 

specification; 

(4) A commercial part as defined in §21.1 of this part; 

____ .,.. (5) Produced by an owner or operator for maintaining or altering that owner or operator's product; or 

(6) Fabricated by an appropriately rated certificate holder with a quality system, and consumed in the repair or 

alteration of a product or article in accordance with part 43 of this chapter. lfi!J•••••••-. 

EXHIBIT 

FAA Advisory Circular No. 20-62D provides that 

"4. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions apply to this AC: 

n. Owner/Operator Produced Part. Parts that were produced by an owner/operator for installation 

on their own aircraft (e.g., by a certificated air carrier). An owner/operator is considered a producer of a 
part, 'if the owner participated in contr6lling the design, manufacture, 6r quality of the part. Participating 

in the design of the part can include supervising the manufacture of the part or providing the manufacturer 

with the following: the design data, the materials with which to make the part, the fabrication processes, 

assembly methods, or the quality control procedures. " 

"6 .. DISCUSSION. 

b. The continued airworthiness of an aircraft, which includes the replacement of parts, is the responsibility 

of the owner/operator, as specified in 14 CFR parts 91, 119, 121, 125, and 135, sections 91.403, 121.363, 

125.243, and 135.413. These rules require that the installer determine that a part is acceptable for 

installation on a product or component prior to returning that product or component to service with the 

part installed. Those rules also require that the installation of a part must be accomplished in accordance 

with data approved by the FAA, if the installation constitutes a major repair or alteration. 

14. SUMMARY. The approval for return to service after maintenance of aircraft, engines, propellers, 

appliances, and materials and parts thereof, is the responsibility of the person who performs the 

maintenance and who signs the record for approval for return to service. The owner/operator (as noted in 

paragraph 6b) is responsible for the continued airworthiness of the aircraft. To ensure continued safety in 

civil aviation, it is essential that appropriate data is used when inspecting, testing, and determining the 

acceptabilitY ofaU parts ·arid materials: ParliCu1ar caution should be exercised when tbe origi'n ofparts, . 

materials, and appliances cannot be established or when their origin is in doubt." 

·····:······.···············End ofFAA AC 20-62, Quote. 

Avantair owns and/or operates over sixty (60) Piaggio P180 Avanti and Avanti II aircraft. 

Using data provided by Avantair, AECI has reverse engineered center hinge fitting part number, 

80-3931 03-405AEC and outboard hinge fitting part number, 80-393103-407 AEC for the Piaggio 

P180 Aircraft and AECI has applied for PMA ofthe two parts to the Atlanta ACO. The FAA 

has assigned it Project No. PM13219AT-A. The two parts are a part of AECI Kit Part No. SB80-0262AEC. In addition AECI produced these hinge fittings in support of the PMA 

Application, and on an "owner I operator" basis for Avantair, Inc., Clearwater, Florida (hereafter 

Avantair), to be used only by Avantair aircrafts. Avantair contracted AECI to produce parts for 

them under their direction as owner operator. These parts were delivered to A vantair with 

manufacturers C of C only. No FAA Form 813 0-3 was issued to A vantair with these parts and 

no representations were made on the paperwork that these parts were produced under FAAPMA. A vantair was clearly aware of these facts as it was emphasized by AECI in many daily 

talks and meetings. 

AECI provided this service to Avantair as a non-certified contractor and u..11der the supervision of 

Avantair's personnel visiting AECI regularly assessing progress of making these parts for them. 

There was a problem with the first shipment of the parts. The parts had been incorrectly marked 

to the PMA application drawing, which was made known to AECI by Avantair's Quality 

Director, and other Avantair management personnel at their receiving department on the first 

shipment. Upon notification AECI immediately drove to the A vantair facility and retrieved the 

parts from them for rework. The discrepancy was identified to AECI quality control and the 

parts were reworked to change part marking and then returned to Avantair. All of the same parts 

shipped to Avantair thereafter, were marked correctly. AECI has full traceability and · 

accountability for the Hinge Fittings and we know exactly how many produced, and how many 

shipped to Avantair. Many ofthe parts have since been returned to AECI by Avantair and are 

available for inspection. Some of the parts were kept by A vantair and it is our understanding that 

they are in quarantine. Pictures of the reworked parts are provided on the next page. 
AECI immediately took two corrective actions, orie to make sure the internal manufacturing 

standard operating procedures (SOPs) do not call for p'art marking with "F AA-PMA" for owner 

operator produced parts. Further, second corrective action, AECI quality control put procedures 

in place to checks the PMA status as part of QC/QA procedures ensuring proper part marking. 
1 • ' • 

r' 

Avantair originally contacted AECI to obtain PMA for a number ofPiaggio P180 parts. As the 

PMA was taking an excessive amount of time, Avantair approached AECI with making the parts 

as "owner I operator" parts in order to meet their then current needs. AECI produced the parts 

according to A vantair' s direction and advised A vantair of the necessary documentations needed 

to receive and use the parts as owner I operator parts. AECI offered to work with Avantair on 

the necessary documentation, but A vantair refused to allow AECI to verify their documentation, 

but said they will take care of it. 

AECI has produced the center hinge fitting part number, 80-3931 03-405AEC and outboard hinge 

fitting part number, 80-3 931 03-407 AEC according to the FAA regulations and advisory circular 

previously mentioned. The parts were produced for A vantair only and were manufactured as 

owner I operator parts. The parts were never shipped anywhere but to Avantair only. All 

development data and parts were supplied by A vantair. AECI welcomes the FAA investigators 

. to visit our facility and see the parts and documentation for producing and shipping these parts to 

A vantair. AECI will fully cooperate with the FAA in this matter. 

A vantair received the parts with C of C, and without 8130-3 and AECI witnessed them installing 

the parts on one of their P1.80 aircrafts. This clearlv shows that Avantair understood that the parts -- , __ , ....... - ................. -................ ······ .. ······-- ..................... ':.:/ ........... ·-·-----. ...... --- ............... ··--······ ··- .. . . ····· .. 

were produced under their owner operator requirements, since it is their responsibility to insure 

the airworthiness of their aircraft. Further, the parts were installed by their A&P mechanics 

which have the responsibility to make proper documentation and log entry is made. 

One further point to note, that AECI will not knowingly produce parts contrary to requirements 

of the federal aviation regulations. We strive to keep our systems up to date so to be in full 

compliance with the regulatory agency requirements. AECI welcomes your comments and any 

advice or corrective actions that may improve our operating systems. 

Please advise if I can be of further assistance. Additionally advise what date and time is best for 

your visit? Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Kamran Rouhani 

AECI 

727-466-1761 Phone direct 

k.rouhani@aec-inc. com 

CC: File