In the Matter of:

,.. :·.**-~ :~** **:.~**LJ AVIATION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. FDMS No: FAA-2013-0284 FAA DocketNo: (to be assigned) Judge: J. E. Sullivan COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT COMES NOWthe Complainant in this matter, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by and through its Regional Counsel for the Central Region, andpursuantto Section 13.218(d) ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions (14 C.F.R. Section 13.201 et seq.), hereby files its response in oppositionto 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 ofthe pre/post-Complaintproceedings by able and competent counsel; initiallyby 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. Itwas 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 172013 

## 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 IConDecember 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 ofthe 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 offederal 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 ofMarch 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 inher 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 ofbusiness 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 ofDecember 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 FinalNotice of Proposed Civil Penalty 

### (FNPCP) to the Respondent Company. 19. On April22, 2013, the Respondent Company's legal counsel filed an appeal ofthe FNPCP, stating in the letter submitted to Hearing Docket Clerk that the Respondent Company 3"

...denies the allegations in the FAA's final notice ofproposed 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 ofAssignment ofProceeding served May 23, 2013, this case was assigned to Administrative Law Judge J. E. Sullivan by ChiefAdministrative 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 cannotbe filed in the instant case because ofalleged deficiencies in the Complaint as identified inparagraph 2 ofits motion. 23. No hearing date has been set nor a venue established in this case as ofthis date. ARGUMENT 1. The Complaint filed inthis case constitutes notice pleading. The Federal Rule ofCivil 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 reliefmust contain a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. The Complaint filed inthis 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 ofthe facts involved in this case as alleged in the Complaint as early as October 2011. 3. On October 31, 2011, Mr. Rouhani, acting on behalfofthe Respondent Company, informed FAA officials by way ofa 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 Avan 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 4AECI was not done as a gratuitous gesture to Avantar onthe part ofAECI. Rather, it was undertaken by AECI as part ofa business transaction betweenthe 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 Companyto 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 behalfofthe Respondent Company, has notice ofa fact ifhe knows the fact, has reason to know it, should know it, or has been given notification ofit. "Notice." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed, 1979, citing Restatement, Second, Agency§ 9. 6. Based on a cursory review ofExhibit A it is axiomatic that the Respondent Company has had ample notice ofthe facts involved in this case. Itis amply capable offiling an appropriate 'Answerto the Complaint without need ofa More Definite Statement from the Complainant. 7. Consequently, in the instant case, the filing ofa More Definite Statementby 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 nowbe heard to complain that it is hampered in filing an Answerbased on a lack ofknowledge or understanding ofthe facts. 8. In addition to the clear evidence that militates against accepting the propositionthat the Respondent Company's position as merit, see Exhibit A, it is very telling that the Respondent Company never requested a copy ofthereleasable portions ofthe FAA's enforcement file through the Freedom oflnformationAct (FOIA). Ifthere had been a real need for AECI to 5ascertain facts not otherwise known, a simple FOIA request would have provided data in the possession ofthe FAA that AECI could have reviewed and evaluated. 9. The submission ofa FOIA request is not dependent upon the initiation oflitigation by a party. Accordingly, such a request could have been submitted over a year ago. Butthe Respondent Company elected to not file such a request. 10. Itis respectfully submittedthat the decision to not submit a FOIA request made by the Respondent Company is the result ofa lack ofneed 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 ofPractice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions allows any party to initiate discovery without the consent or**~pproval** ofthe administrative lawjudge at any time after the filing ofa complaint. Section 13.220(e) ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions allows a party to discover any matter thatis relevant and relates to the defense ofany otherparty including facts known oropinions 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 ofany document or othertangible item and the identity and location ofany person having knowledge ofdiscoverable 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 abbreviatedresponse time from Complainant's counsel.

613. The Respondent Company could have filed such a discovery request ifittruly 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 Statementtakes onthe appearance ofa quasi-discovery effort filed prior to the filing ofan Answer. The more one looks at the questions framed inParagraph 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, butnot so in a motion such as the one pending before the lawjudge. 15. Clearly, in the instant case, it cannot be said that the Respondent Company will suffer any hardship ifits 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 inthis matter call for the motion to be denied. WHEREFORE, Complainantrespectfully requests that an Order issue denying the Respondent Company's motion for a More Definite Statement and ordering that itprovide an Answer to the Complaint forthwith. Dated this 7th day ofJune 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 7AVIATION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., FDMS No: FAA-2013-0284, FAA DocketNo: (to be assigned)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date provided a copy ofComplainant's Response in Oppositionto 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 ofTransportation 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 2W1000 Mr. Kamran Rouhani (copy only) Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc.

- Respondent 2750 Sunset Point Road Clearwater, FL 33759 Dated this 

### ih day ofJune 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 FileNo. 2012CE440003 from Mack Riley, Orlando MIDO Manager, Dated October 18, 2011. Reference: FAA Letter FileNo. 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 thatthe 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 partnumber, 80-393103-405AEC and outboard hinge fitting part number, 80- 393103-407AEC for sale and installation on U.S. type certificatedproducts without the benefit ofparts manufacturing approval. The same letter stated thatproduction ofthe articles without production approval is contraryto the requirements ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations. The letter also stated that the matter was under investigation by the Federal AviationAdministration. Please note that AECI producedthe subjectparts mentioned above in compliancewithFederal Regulation 14CFR21.9(a)(5), and FAAAdvisory Circular 20-62D. Below is a briefsynopsis of the regulatoryrequirement we considered. Federal Regulation 14 CFR21.9 provides that; (a) Ifa person knows, orshould know, that a replacement ormodification article is reasonably likely to be installed on a type-certificatedproduct, the person maynotproduce that article unless it is- (1) Produced undera type certificate; (2) Produced underan FAA production approval; (3) A -standardpart (such as a nutorbolt) manufactured in compliance with a government orestablishedindustry specification; (4) A commercialpartas defined in §21.1 ofthis part;

____ .,.. (5) Producedbyan owneror operatorformaintaining or altering that owneror operator's product; or (6) Fabricatedbyan appropriately rated certificate holder with a qualitysystem, and consumed in the repairor alteration ofa product orarticle in accordance with part43 ofthis chapter. 

# lfi!J•••••••-. EXHIBIT FAAAdvisory CircularNo. 20-62D provides that "4. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions apply to this AC:

n. Owner/OperatorProducedPart. 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 ofapart,'ifthe owner participated in contr6lling the design, manufacture, 6r quality ofthe part. Participating in the design ofthe part can include supervising the manufacture ofthe part or providing the manufacturer with the following: the design data, the materials with which to make the part, the fabrication processes, assembly methods, orthe quality control procedures. "

"6

.. DISCUSSION. b. The continued airworthiness ofan aircraft, which includes the replacement ofparts, is the responsibility ofthe owner/operator, as specified in 14 CFRparts 91, 119, 121, 125, and 135, sections 91.403, 121.363, 125.243, and 135.413. These rules require that the installer determine that apart is acceptable for installation on a product or component prior to returning that product or component to service withthe part installed. Those rules also require that the installation ofa part must be accomplished in accordance with data approved by the FAA, ifthe installation constitutes a major repair or alteration. 14. SUMMARY. The approval for return to service after maintenance ofaircraft, engines, propellers, appliances, and materials and parts thereof, is the responsibility ofthe 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 ofthe aircraft. To ensure continued safety in civil aviation, it is essential that appropriate data is used when inspecting, testing, and determiningthe 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 dataprovided byAvantair, AECIhas reverse engineered centerhinge fitting part number, 80-393103-405AEC and outboard hinge fitting part number, 80-393103-407AEC for the Piaggio P180Aircraft and AECI has applied for PMA ofthetwo parts to the Atlanta ACO. The FAA has assigned itProjectNo. PM13219AT-A. The two parts are a part ofAECI KitPartNo. SB80-0262AEC. In addition AECIproducedthese hinge fittings in support ofthe PMA Application, and on an "owner I operator" basis for Avantair, Inc., Clearwater, Florida (hereafter Avantair), tobe used only byAvantairaircrafts. Avantair contracted AECI to produceparts for themundertheir direction as owner operator. These parts were delivered to Avantair with manufacturers C ofC only. No FAA Form 8130-3 was issuedto Avantair withthese parts and no representations were made onthe paperwork thatthese parts were produced underFAAPMA. Avantair was clearly aware ofthese facts as it was emphasizedbyAECI in many daily talks and meetings. AECIprovidedthis serviceto Avantair as a non-certified contractor and u..11der the supervision of Avantair'spersonnel visiting AECIregularly assessingprogress ofmaking these parts for them. There was a problem withthe first shipment oftheparts. Theparts had been incorrectly marked to the PMA application drawing, which was made knownto AECIbyAvantair's Quality Director, and other Avantairmanagementpersonnel attheir receiving department on the first shipment. Upon notificationAECI immediately drove to the Avantair facility andretrieved the parts from them for rework. The discrepancy was identified to AECI quality control and the parts were reworkedto changepartmarking andthen returnedto Avantair. All ofthe sameparts shippedto Avantair thereafter, were marked correctly. AECI has full traceability and · accountability forthe Hinge Fittings and we know exactly howmanyproduced, and howmany shippedto Avantair. Many oftheparts have since beenreturned to AECI byAvantair and are available for inspection. Some ofthe parts werekeptbyAvantair and it is ourunderstanding that they are in quarantine. Pictures ofthereworkedparts are provided on the nextpage.AECI immediately tooktwo corrective actions, orie to make sure the internal manufacturing standard operatingprocedures (SOPs) do not call for p'art markingwith "F AA-PMA" for owner operatorproducedparts. Further, second corrective action, AECI quality controlputprocedures in place to checks the PMA status as part ofQC/QAprocedures ensuring properpartmarking.1 • ' •

r' Avantair originally contacted AECIto obtain PMAfor a number ofPiaggio P180 parts. As the PMA was taking an excessive amount oftime, Avantair approached AECI with makingtheparts as "owner I operator" parts in order to meettheir then current needs. AECI produced the parts according to Avantair's direction and advised Avantair ofthe necessary documentations needed to receive and use the parts as owner I operatorparts. AECI offered to work with Avantair on the necessary documentation, butAvantair refused to allow AECI to verify their documentation, but said they will take care ofit. AECI has produced the centerhinge fitting partnumber, 80-393103-405AEC and outboard hinge fitting partnumber, 80-3931 03-407AEC according to the FAA regulations and advisory circular previously mentioned. The parts wereproduced for Avantair only and were manufactured as owner I operatorparts. The parts were never shipped anywhere butto Avantair only. All development data and parts were supplied byAvantair. AECI welcomes the FAA investigators

.to visit our facility and see the parts and documentation for producing and shippingtheseparts to Avantair. AECI will fully cooperate with the FAA in this matter. Avantair received theparts with C ofC, and without 8130-3 and AECI witnessed them installing theparts onone oftheir P1.80 aircrafts. This clearlv shows that Avantairunderstood thattheparts

-- , __, ....... - .................- ................ ······ .. ······-- ..................... ':.:/

........... ·-·-----....... --- ............... ··--······ ··- .. . . ····· .. were produced under their owner operator requirements, since it is their responsibility to insure the airworthiness oftheir aircraft. Further, theparts were installed bytheir A&P mechanics which have the responsibility to make proper documentation and log entry is made. One further pointto note, thatAECI will notknowingly produce parts contraryto requirements ofthe 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 orcorrective actions that may improve our operating systems. Please advise ifI can be offurther assistance. Additionally advise what date and time is best for yourvisit? Thankyou. Sincerely,

Kamran Rouhani AECI 727-466-1761 Phone direct k.rouhani@aec-inc.com

CC: File