SERVED: MAY 14,2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC :!J\1 '},V t 5 

In The Matter Of: 

Docket No. F AA-20 13-0288 

AVIONICS MASTERS, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Respondent ) 

Case No. 2012S0190209 

ORDER GRANTING THE FAA'S MOTION 

FORSUMMARYJUDGMENT 

On March 10,2014, the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") filed its Motion for 

Summary Judgment ("Motion"). This Motion sought complete dispositive relief regarding the 

alleged violations and the proposed civil penalty. 

On March 18,2014, Avionics Masters, Inc. ("Respondent") filed the Respondent's 

' 

Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses. Accompanying the Amended Answer was 

Respondent's Notice of Appearance of Attorney. While the Certificate of Service attached to 

each of these documents indicated that a copy was sent via regular mail to the Judge, no copies 

of the Respondent's Amended Answer or Notice of Appearance were ever filed or received. On 

April3, 2014 the Office of Hearings staff obtained copies from the public website, 

www.regulations.gov. 

On March 26,2014, Respondent's Answer Opposing Complainant's Motion for 

Summary Judgment was filed ("Answer"). 

On April 7, 2014, the FAA filed an Amendment to Complaint, in which it listed certain 

amendments it was making to its original Complaint. These amendments included an alternate 

plea for relief. The FAA did not attach or file an actual Amended Complaint. 

On April 7, 2014, the FAA filed its Reply In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment 

("Reply"). 
On April15, 2014 (I 0:18am), the Respondent filed a Second Amended Answer and 

Affirmative Defenses in Response to Administrator's Amended Complaint, and Brief Response 

to Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. 

On Aprill5, 2014, the parties convened by telephone for a Summary Judgment Motion 

Conference, and presented oral arguments on the FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment. At the 

conclusion of oral argument, both parties were given deadlines to file supplemental materials. 

The FAA was also given a deadline to file an Amended Complaint. The next day, on April 16, 

2014, an Order Setting Deadline for Filing Amended Complaint and Supplemental Materials was 

filed. 

On May 5, 2014, the FAA filed the following: 1) Supplement on Motion for Summary 

Judgment ("FAA Supplement"); and; 2) Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint"). 

On May 8, 2014 the Respondent filed the following: 1) Affidavit of Charles Hunt Per 

Court Order Served Aprill6, 2014 Regarding Amount ofPenalty, and 2) Pilot's Guide for the 

King KAP/KFC 200 Flight Control Systems ("Supplemental Answer"). 

On May 9, 2014, the parties convened by telephone for a second Summary Judgment 

Motion Conference, and presented additional oral arguments on the FAA's Motion for Summary 

Judgment. 

A. Summary Judgment Requests for Decision 

The FAA's March 10,2014 Motion for Summary Judgment seeks a decision on the 

merits ofthe two (2) alleged violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs"), as well as 

the FAA's proposed civil penalty of$7,150. In its Reply, the FAA also alternatively requests a 

decision on the merits of the two (2) alternatively alleged violations, with a proposed civil 

penalty of$4,042. 

B. Standard of Review for Summary Judgment 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.218, a party may file motions, including a motion for a 

decision on the merits, in advance of a hearing when a party asserts that there is no disputed 

material issues of fact to be heard. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(f)(5), any motion for a 

Page 2 of 13 
decision on the merits prior to a testimonial hearing is reviewed under the same standard as a 

summary judgment motion (Civ. R. 56). 

The purpose of summary judgment is "to isolate, and then terminate, claims and defenses 

that are factually unsupported." Steven Baicker-McKee, et.al, Federal Civil Rules Handbook, 

West Publishing (2012) (Rule 56). 

Pursuant to Civ. R. 56( a), a summary judgment motion may be granted if "the movant 

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law." See, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); 

Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Circuit 2006). In addition, pursuant to Rule 56(f), 

summary judgment may also be granted to a non-moving party, after all parties have had notice 

and a reasonable time to respond. 

A fact is "material" if it is capable of affecting the substantial outcome of the litigation. 

Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 895; Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute is "genuine" if the 

evidence is such that a reasonable trier of fact could return a verdict for the non-moving party. 

See, Scott v. Harris, 5550 US 372, 380 (2007); Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 US at 248, Holcomb, 433 

F.3d at 895. 

On a motion for summary judgment, all evidence and inferences are to be viewed in light 

most favorable to the non-moving party. However, a non-moving party (e.g., the Respondent 

herein answering the FAA's Motion) may not rest upon mere denials or allegations in the 

pleadings. Pursuant to Civ. R. 56( c), (d), and (e), a non-moving party who wishes to proceed to 

trial must respond to the motion for summary judgment, and set forth specific facts sufficient to 

show there is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). See 

also, Citizens State Bank of Big Lake v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 815 F.Supp. 309 (D. Minn. 

1993); Steven Baicker-McKee, et.al, Federal Civil Rules Handbook, West Publishing (2012) 

(Rule 56) (a non-moving party may produce materials, and/or cite to materials produced or not 

produced by the movant in resisting the summary judgment motion). 

Pursuant to Civ. R. 56 (c)(l)(A), specific facts alleged by either party may be asserted by 

submitting or citing to a variety of documents and declarations. Materials submitted during 

summary judgment proceedings must be capable of being offered at trial in an admissible form. 

Page 3 of13 
See, Steven Baicker-McKee, et.al, Federal Civil Rules Handbook, West Publishing (2012) (Rule 

56). Once the moving party has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to show, by affidavit or otherwise, that a genuine dispute of material fact remains 

for the fact-finder to resolve. (!d.) 

On a summary judgment motion, the court does not rule on the weight of the evidence. 

SeeSteven Baicker-McKee, et.al, Federal Civil Rules Handbook, West Publishing (2012) (Rule 

56) (The court never weighs the evidence, evaluates credibility or makes findings on disputed 

facts in summary judgment proceedings.). 

C. Admissibility of FAA's Summary Judgment Factual Proof 

As part of its Motion, the FAA submitted ten (1 0) Exhibits, identified as FAA Exhibits 

A-J. As part of its Reply, the FAA submitted one (1) additional Exhibit, identified as Exhibit K. 

As part of its May 5, 2014 Supplement, the FAA submitted one (1) additional Exhibit, identified 

as Exhibit L. 

At the April15, 2014 Motion Conference, the FAA's Exhibits A-D and F-K were 

deemed admissible as evidence without objection. The Respondent objected to the admissibility 

ofFAA Exhibit E, on the grounds it was incomplete. This objection was overruled, and FAA 

Exhibit E was deemed admissible as evidence and considered. 

At the May 9, 2014 Motion Conference, the FAA's Exhibit I was deemed admissible as 

evidence without objection. 

D. Admissibility of Respondent's Summary Judgment Factual Proof 

As part of its March 26,2014 Summary Judgment Answer, the Respondent submitted 

one Affidavit ofMr. Charles Hunt, and two (2) Exhibits, identified as Respondent Exhibits 1-2. 

As part of its May 8, 2014 Supplemental Answer, the Respondent filed two (2) additional written 

materials, not specifically marked. On May 9, 2014, the Respondent filed an additional Affidavit 

of Charles Hunt, which the FAA had already received earlier, on May 5, 2014. These 

Respondent supplemental materials were marked as follows: EXhibit 3 (May 5, 2014 Affidavit of 

Charles Hunt), Exhibit 4 (May 8, 2014 Affidavit of Charles Hunt Regarding Amount of Penalty), 

and Exhibit 5 (Pilot Guide). 

Page 4 of.13 
At the April15, 2014 Motion Conference, the Respondent's Affidavit of Charles Hunt 

and Exhibits 1 and 2 were deemed admissible as evidence without objection. 

At the May 9, 2014 Motion Conference, Respondent Exhibits 3-5 were deemed 

admissible as evidence without objection. 

E. Primary Federal Regulations Alleged Violated 

In its Amended Complaint, the FAA primarily alleges that on or about December 22, 

2011 the Respondent violated 14 C.P.R.§§ 145.5(a) and 145.201(b). (Am. Compl., 2). 

Section 145.5(a) is an introductory section that states: 

No person may operate as a certificated repair station without, or in violation of, a 

repair station certificate, ratings, or operations specifications issued under this 

part. 

14 C.P.R.§ 145.5(a) 

Section 145.201(b) is a specific section that states: 

A certificated repair station may not maintain or alter any article for which it is 

not rated, and may not maintain or alter any article for which it is rated if it 

requires special technical data, equipment, or facilities that are not available to it. 

14 C.P.R.§ 145.201(b). 

The FAA's alternatively plead regulatory violations are addressed separately, in 

paragraph J, infra. 

F. Applicable Regulatory Definitions 

Pursuant to Section 1.1 ofthe PARs, the following definitions are applicable: 

1. Maintenance means inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement of 

parts, but excludes preventative maintenance. 

2. Preventative Maintenance means simple or minor preservation operations and the 

replacement of small standard parts not involving complex assembly operations. 

Page 5 of13 
G. Dictionary Definitions 

The F ARs do not provide a definition for the word "inspection," which is conta~ned in the 

FARs definitions ofmaintenance and preventative maintenance. Webster's Third New 

International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, G. & C. Merriam Company 

(1976) provides common definitions for this word as follows: "Inspection: the act or process of 

inspection: a strict or close examination." 

H. Evidentiary Discussion and Analysis on the Primary Allegations 

Because 14 C.P.R.§ 145.201(a) is an introductory regulation, this discussion on the 

primary allegations is focused on the more specific regulation of 14 C.P.R.§ 145.20l(b). The 

four material issues of fact involved in assessing an alleged violation of 14 C.P.R. § 145.201(b) 

are addressed in sequence below. 

1. Is the Respondent a certificated repair station? YES. 

It was undisputed that the Respondent operated an approved, certificated repair station 

under Air Agency Certificate No. VIMR095K. (FAA Exh. A; Sec. Am. Ans., 1.) 

2. Did the Respondent maintain an article (i.e., the Gyro) when the Respondent either 

inspected or repaired the Gyro on or about December 22. 2011? YES. 

The parties agreed the Respondent's Operations Specifications or Accepted Capability 

List did not authorize the Respondent to perform maintenance on the Bendix/King directional 

gyro, model KG 1 02A, serial number X32301 ("Gyro"). (Am. Compl., 1; Sec. Am. Ans., 2-3.) 

This section will focus on the "inspection" portion of the FAA's primary allegation of improper 

maintenance. 

As noted earlier herein, 14 C.P.R.§ 1.1 defines "maintenance" as an "inspection, 

overhaul, repair, preservation, and the replacement of parts, but excluding preventative 

maintenance." Thus, the Respondent would have been "maintaining" the Gyro when it engaged 

in either an inspection or a repair of the component. 

The FAA presented evidence that on or about December 22, 2011, the Respondent 

removed the Gyro from the Bendix/King KFC 200 Flight Control System ("Auto Pilot") and 

Page 6 of13 
performed a "Bench check and repair" on it (Mot. 2), as evidenced by the completed Form 8130-

3 (FAA Exh. D) and the Respondent's Work Order 8078. (FAA Exh. E; see also, Mot., 5, 8.) 

In response, the Respondent admitted that on December 22, 2011, it had issued Work 

Order No. 8078 for the Gyro. The Respondent agreed that it had performed a "Level 1 

inspection" of the Auto Pilot, which included a "rudimentary functional test" and inspection of 

the Gyro (Ans., 2). The Respondent emphasized that it had only tested and inspected the Gyro. 

(Jd. at 3; FAA Exh D.) The Respondent denied the FAA's alternative pleading that it had 

performed "repairs" on the Gyro. (Sec. Am. Ans., 3-4.) 

It was undisputed that Form 8130-3, filled out by the Respondent on December 22, 2011, 

stated the following: (1) the Respondent tested and inspected the Gyro; 2) details of the "repair" 

were on file; and; (3) the Respondent had returned the Gyro to service. The form was signed by 

Charles L. Hunt using the repair station's certificate. (Mot., 2; FAA. Exh. D.) 

Thus, based on the F ARs definition of "maintenance", which includes the act of 

inspection, it was undisputed that the Respondent maintained the Gyro when the Respondent 

inspected and bench tested the Gyro on or about December 22, 2011. 

3. Was the Respondent rated to maintain or alter the Gyro? NO. 

It was undisputed that on or about December 22, 2011, the Respondent's Operations 

Specifications granted the Respondent a Limited Instrument Rating. (FAA Exh. B.) Pursuant to 

14 C.F.R. § 145.61(a) and (b), this limited instrument rating allowed the Re~pondent to only 

perform "specialized maintenance" on "[i]nstruments of a particular make and model." Pursuant 

to 14 C.F.R. § 145.215(a), the Respondent's Capability List or operations specification manual 

had to specifically list the article(s) on which it could perform maintenance. 14 C.F.R. 

§ 145.215(b) provides the manner of listing: 

The capability list must identify each article by make and model or other nomenclature 

designated by the article's manufacturer and be available in a format acceptable to the 

FAA. 

In addition, 14 C.F.R. § 145.215(c) requires in part, that an article could be listed in the 

repair station's Capability List only if"the article is within the scope ofthe ratings ofthe repair 

station's certificate, and only after the repair station has performed a self-evaluation in 

Page 7 of13 
accordance with the procedures under§ 145.209(d)(2)." Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 145.215(c), the 

repair station's self-evaluation was required to demonstrate that the repair station had "all of the 

housing, facilities, equipment, material, technical data, processes, and trained personnel in place 

to perform the work on the article as required by part 145." After conducting the self-evaluation, 

the repair station was required to "retain on file documentation of the evaluation." 14 C.F.R. 

§ 145.215(c). 

a) Respondent's Capability List and Operations Specifications 

It was undisputed that the Respondent's Air Agency Certificate granted it a "limited 

instrument" rating. (FAA Exh. A.) It was also undisputed that its operations specifications 

allowed it to "Install, Remove, Repair and Replace Instruments" identified in its Capability List 

(FAA Exh. B.) It was undisputed that the Respondent's Capability List did not specifically list 

the Gyro. It did, however, list the Auto Pilot. (FAA Exh. C, 15.) The Respondent's Capability 

List authorized it to conduct a "Levell: Line and/or bench test, and Installation" of the 

Autopilot. (!d.) 

b) Respondent's Scope of Authority for Maintenance of the Gyro 

The Respondent argued that based on its Capability List, it was authorized to "perform a 

Level 1 inspection and related service of the Auto Pilot, which includes rudimentary checks of 

the components." (Ans., 4.) The Respondent asserted that this included authority to bench test 

the Gyro component as part oftesting the Auto Pilot system for functionality. (R. Exh. 3, ~6.) 

Mr. Charles Hunt testified that "bench testing components" of the autopilot system, including the 

testing of the Gyro component, was a "necessary part" ofthe Levell inspection. (R. Exh. 3, ~7.) 

"If each component functions properly" during the bench test, then "it is presumed that the 

autopilot will function properly." (R. Exh. 3, ~6.) 

The FAA agreed that the Respondent's Capability List (FAA Exh. C, 15) authorized it to 

perform maintenance on "some autopilot systems .... which may use directional gyros." (FAA 

Exh. J, ~11). The Respondent was authorized to perform maintenance on "some autopilot 

systems" that might use directional gyros, such as the specific Gyro in dispute in this case. (FAA 

Exh. J, 2.) However, the FAA stated that this limited authorization to maintain the Auto Pilot 

system, which included the Gyro as a component, meant that the Respondent was authorized to 

Page 8 of13 
only "install" or "remove" the Gyro, or "perform a functional test ofthe Auto Pilot system" with 

the directional gyro component installed as part of the autopilot system. (FAA Exh. J, 2.) 

It was undisputed that the FAR requires a certificated repair station to hold either a Class 

3 instrument rating in order to maintain gyroscopic instruments or systems, or a Limited rating 

which only permits work on certain specific aircraft or components listed in its capability list. 

(Mot., 4.) Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 145.59(e)(3), a Class 3 Gyroscopic Instrument rating applies 

to "an instrument or system using gyroscopic principles and motivated by air pressure or 

·electrical energy, including automatic pilot control units, ... [and] directional gyros, and their 

parts[.]" 

Inspector McGlen also testified that the Respondent's limited instrument rating did not 

include any authority to "maintain [the Gyro], or any other gyros, as reflected in their Capability 

List. If [the Respondent] was authorized to maintain the [Gyro], or other gyros, then they would 

have a section in their Capability List listing the gyros on which they were authorized to work." 

(FAA Exh. J, ~~9 and 11.) Thus, the Respondent could only "install the directional gyro as part 

of the autopilot system, remove the gyro as part of the autopilot system, or perform a functional 

test of the autopilot system with the directional gyro installed." (!d. at ~11.) 

4. Did the Respondent have the equipment or facilities available to perform the 

maintenance? NO. 

FAA Inspector Roger MeG len explained, among other things, that the Respondent did 

not have the necessary equipment to even conduct an independent inspection of the Gyro. 

"Inspecting the gyro itself requires an electronic turntable, and [the Respondent] does not have 

this piece of equipment." (FAA Exh. J, ~7.) In response, the Respondent did not provide any 

self-evaluation documentation or other evidence to demonstrate that it had the facilities, 

equipment, personnel and other components needed to properly inspect or bench test the Gyro as 

part of its Level 1 inspection process. 

I. Precedential FAA Administrator Decision and Analysis 

In support of its Motion, the FAA pointed to the precedential holding of In the Matter of 

Royal Avionics Systems, Inc., FAA Order No. 2002-6 (April 16, 2002). The Respondent did not 

address this case in any of its responsive materials. 

Page 9 of13 
Like the Respondents in this case, the respondent repair station in Royal Avionics held a 

Limited Instrument rating which permitted it to maintain autopilots. The repair station argued 

that its Limited Instrument rating authorized it to maintain flux valves as part of its overall 

maintenance ofthe autopilot system. 

Judge Burton S. Kolko did not find this argument persuasive. He held that the repair 

station's Limited Instrument rating- permitting it to maintain autopilots- did not include 

authorization to maintain flux valves. In re Royal Avionics Systems, Docket No. CP99WP00021, 

Initial Decision, at 13 (Apr. 5, 2000). As part of his Decision, Judge Kolko pointed out that the 

flux valves (also called flux gates) and automatic pilot control units were listed as separate 

articles for maintenance in the FARs. 14 C.F.R. § 145.59(e)(3);1 (Mot. 7); In re Royal Avionics 

Systems, Docket No. CP99WP00021, Initial Decision, at 5 (Apr. 5, 2000). 

Judge Kolko acknowledged that the flux valve was "part of the autopilot in a broad 

sense." (!d.) However, Judge Kolko also pointed out that the flux valve was a "self-contained 

unit" that was clearly identified by the F ARs as requiring special maintenance authorization. 

(!d.) The F ARs created distinct maintenance class ratings so that "only those repair stations that 

have demonstrated an appropriate level of knowledge and competence" would perform 

maintenance on the identified articles. (!d.) 

Upon appeal, the FAA Administrator upheld Judge Kolka's decision, reiterating that the 

repair station's limited instrument rating did not authorize it to maintain the flux valve. In the 

Matter of Royal Avionics Systems, Inc., FAA Order No. 2002-6, at 13 (April 16, 2002). 

This same factual pattern, and distinction in the regulations, is present in the instant case. 

As noted earlier herein, 14 C.F.R. § 145.59(e)(3) provides that a Class 3: Gyroscopic Instrument 

rating applies to "an instrument or system using gyroscopic principles and motivated by air 

pressure or electrical energy, including automatic pilot control units, ... [and] directional gyros, 

and their parts[.]" Therefore, the holder of a Class 3 Instrument Rating would be able to 

maintain any of those articles. 

The Respondent herein holds only a Limited Instrument Rating limited to those 

instruments specifically identified in its Capability List. The Respondent's Capability List 

1 At the time of decision, the language of the current 14 C.P.R.§ 145.59 appeared in 14 C.P.R. § 145.31. 

Page 10 of13 
includes the Auto Pilot but not the Gyro, which is a separate component of the autopilot system. 

The Respondent acknowledged, in multiple submissions, that the Gyro was a separate 

component. (See, e.g., FAA Exh. G; R. Exh. 4, ~4.) Like the repair station in Royal Avionics, the 

Respondent was not authorized to maintain the Gyro, and was not authorized to conduct any 

"inspection" or "bench test" of the Gyro as part of its Level 1 inspection of the Auto Pilot 

system. 

After reviewing all factual evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party 

(i.e., the Respondent), the FAA has proved, as a matter oflaw, that the Respondent committed 

the two (2) primary violations alleged in the Amended Complaint: 14 C.F.R. §§ 145.5(a) and 

145.201(b). 

J. ALTERNATIVE PLEADING- MOOT 

In the alternative, the FAA alleged that on or about December 22, 2011, the Respondent 

violated 14 C.F.R. §§ 43.5(a) and 43.9(a)(1) when it completed a Form 8130-3 indicating that the 

Respondent had repaired the Gyro when the Respondent had not in fact performed a repair, but 

rather an inspection. (FAA Exh. D.) 

In response, the Respondent asserted that it had erroneously filled out Form 8130-3. The 

erroneous entry in Form 8130-3 had been corrected at a later date. (R. Aff., 2; R. Exh. 1.) The 

Gyro had never been repaired. It had never been installed in an aircraft. (Sec. Am. Ans., 4; R. 

Exh. 3; R. Aff., 2.) Instead, the Respondent explained that it had only performed a 

·"rudimentary" and "functional test" of the Gyro during a "Level 1 inspection" of the Auto Pilot. 

(Se.c. Am. Ans. 4, R. R. Aff., 1.) The Gyro had then been placed into storage. 

Given the finding that the FAA has proved the primary allegations in its Amended 

Complaint, the alternate pleading is deemed moot. Thus, no further discussion of the alternate 

pleading, or the parties' submitted evidence on the alternate pleading, is necessary. 

K. CIVIL PENALTY 

The FAA has proposed a civil penalty of $7,150 for the violations of 14 C.F .R. 

§§ 145.5(a) and 145.201(b). As evidentiary support for this recommendation, the FAA 

submitted a partial copy of its Sanction Guidance Policies (FAA Exh. I), and the Declaration of 

Page 11 of13 
Mr. David Dunn, an FAA Regional Specialist (FAA Exh. L ). 

It was undisputed that the Respondent was a small business, and that the alleged 

violations primarily plead in the FAA's Amended Complaint were covere.d under 49 U.S.C. 

§ 46301 (a)(5)(A). It was also undisputed that the proposed $7,150 civil penalty had been 

calculated utilizing the FAA's published Sanction Guidance Policies, and was the minimum 

amount listed in the maximum range (FAA Exh. I, B-5 and B-21; FAA Exh. L.) 

In response, the Respondent re-asserted that it had not committed the primary violations 

alleged. (R. Exh. 4, ~3.) However, if it had, then its actions "do not warrant a fine of more than 

$7,000." (Id.) Instead, the Respondent recommended a civil penalty of$935, which is the 

minimum fine allowed under the Sanction Guidance Policies, in the minimum range category. 

(FAA Exh. I, B-5.) In support of its request for mitigating circumstances, and a civil penalty 

below the recommended maximum range, the Respondent re-asserted in testimonial evidence 

that it had the authority to bench test the Gyro, and that its inspection of the Gyro was a 

"necessary part of a Level 1 test of a KFC-200." (FAA Exh. 4, ~7.) In essence, the Respondent 

argued that its commission of the violations should be a mitigating factor. The Respondent 

provided no authority for this position. 

After reviewing all factual evidence regarding the proposed civil penalty in a light most 

favorable to the non-moving party (i.e., the Respondent), the FAA has proved, as a matter of law, 

that the Respondent should be assessed a penalty of $7,150 for the two violations, which is the 

minimum amount in the maximum range. 

L. CONCLUSION 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.218(f)(5) and Civ. R. 56, all ofthe parties' admissible Exhibits 

were considered, as well as the applicable pleadings and documents. After having heard oral 

argument on the Motion, and having reviewing all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulations, 

statutory authority, motions, pleadings, and being fully advised; 

Page 12 of13 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The FAA's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. There are no genuine issues of 

material fact in dispute regarding the charged violations, and the FAA is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. 

2. The Hearing scheduled for June 10,2014- June 12, 2014, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida is 

cancelled. 

3. The Respondent is assessed a total civil penalty of$7,150 for the proven violations of 14 

C.F.R. §§ 145.5(a) and 145.201(b). 

4. The FAA's alternate pleadings, contained in the Amended Complaint, are deemed moot. 

5. This Order shall be considered a final order assessing civil penalty unless either party 

files a notice of appeal within 10 days of service of this Order pursuant to 14 C.F .R. 

§ 13.233. 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 13 of13 
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 2Wl 0002 

Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P. 0. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAJ<: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Mohammad Ahmed Faruqui 

Respondent's Counsel 

Aerolaw Offices PLLC 

633 SE 3rd Ave, Suite 4R 

Trial Lawyers Building 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

TEL: None Provided 

F AJ<: None Provided 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAJ<: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0288 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

2 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 2WIOOO, Washington, 

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