02/19/2014 12:18 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 lill 002 

U.S. Department Western-Pacific Region P.O. Box 92007 

ofT ransportalion Office of the Regional Counsel Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

FeEl i 9 2Ci'1 

Telephone: (425) 227-2914 

Facsimile: (31 0) 725-6816 

CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED and FACSIMILE 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-- Suite 2WJ 000 

Re: In the Matter ofHotton Enterorises, Inc .. d/b/a Premier Aviation; 

FAA Case No. 2012WP070156 

Enclosed is a copy of a request for hearing dated February 6, 2014, received by our office on 

February 6, 2014, and the ori gina! and one copy ofthe Complaint in the above-referenced 

proceeding. 

I request that the hearing in this matter be held in the Phoenix, Arizona, area and expect that 

the hearing will last two (2) days. 

Please address all communications for the Regional Counsel of the Western-Pacific Region. 

to the undersigned, at: Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7.12, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Western-Pacific Region, P. 0. Box 92007. Los Angeles, CA 90009-.2007, 

Telephone: (425) 227-2914, FAX: (310) 725-6816. 

Sincerely, 

NAOMI TSUDA 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

Adam 

~2JJ Runkel 

Attorney 

Enclosures: Request for Hearing; Complaint; Certificate of Service 

NOTE TO RESPONDENT: SECTION 13.209 OF THE CP RULES OF PRACTICE 

REQUIRE THAT A WRITTEN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT BE FILED NOT 

LATER THAN 30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT. AS AN 

ALTERNATIVE TO FILING AN ANSWER, A MOTION MAY BE FILED PURSUANT 

TO SECTION 13.208(0) OR SECTION 13.2l&(F)(l-4) OF THE RULES OF PRACTICE. 
02/19/2014 12:19 FAX 3107256816 

l'ebruary 06, 2014 

Federal Aviation Administrafton 

800 Independence Avenue 

sw, Washington DC 20591 

A\VP-7 

ATIN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC"430 Wilbur Wright Building- Room 2W1000 

Subject: Case No. 2012WP070156 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

1 formally request a hearing for the case No. 2D12WP070156 p_er section 13.16 of the Federal 

Regulations. 

s:;;#M/ 

AshokV1j 

Hotton Enterprises In DBA Premier Aviation 

President/CEO 

1951 E. Airport Dr. 

Tucson A2 85756 

141003 
02/19/2014 12:19 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF' TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

141004 

In the Matter ofO:otton Enterprises, Inc., 

d/b/a Premier Aviation: FAA DOCKET UNASSIGNED-20! ~- I 0 g I 

FAA CASE NO. 2012WP070l56 

Respondent 

JUDGE NOT ASSIGNED 

COMPtAINT 

The Complainant files its Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice 

(14 C.P.R. 13.208), and states as follows: 

l. 

Respondent, Holton Enterprises, Inc., cllb/a Premier Aviation, was advised through a 

Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, dated February 4, 2014, that the FAA proposed to 

assess a civil penalty in the amount of $49,500.00. On February 6, 20 !4, Respondent 

submitted a written request for a hearing. 

11. 

l. Respondent is, and at all relevant times has been, the holder of Air Agency 

Certificate, No. I-!3ER052N, authori~ing it to operate an approved Repair Station. 
02/19/2014 12:19 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 

2. Respondent's Repair Station Manual and Quality Control Manual states, ·'Jt is 

the responsibility of the Chief Inspector and Avionics Manager to assure that 

only calibrated equipment is available for use by the Mechanic/Technicians.'' 

3. As ofMay 30, 2012, non-calibrated equipment was available for usc by 

Respondent's mechanics and technicians, including; 

a. Fluke 27 Mulimeter; 

b. Jan Aero Test Set, serial number 380608; 

c. Pressure Gauge 0-5000, Control # ] 006; and 

d. Pressure Gauge 0-100, Control # 05769. 

4. On May 30, 2012, Respondent's employee used the non-calibrated Fluke 27 

multimeter, referenced in paragraph 3.a., when performing rnaintenancc on a 

Piper PA 46-350P aircraft, Civil Registration No. N60TM. 

3 

5. Between April27, 2012, and May '18, 2012, Respondent's employee~ performed 

maintenance on a Mooney M20 air<oraft, Civil Registration No. N112RM. 

6. The maintenance referenced in paragraph 5 included pertbrmance of a 100 

hour/annual inspection. 

7. The maintenance referenced in paragraph 6 included compliance with 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-26-04. 

I4J 005 
02/19/2014 12:19 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 

4 

8. Respondent's Quality Control Manual, section 2, page 9, states, "It is the 

responsibility of the person authorizing "approved for Return to Service·· after a 

100 Hour/Annual Inspection to assure that all applicable AD's state AD number, 

revision date and method of compliance are documented. If the AD involves 

recurring action, the owner/operator is also required to be notified ofthe time and 

date when the next action is required by on "AD compliance Report" and 

originals given to customers." [Sic.) 

9. AD 2011-26-04 requires recurring action. 

10. The AD compliance sheet for N112RM, as filled out by Respondent's 

employees, did not notifY the operator of the time and date when the next action 

is required for AD 2011-26-04. 

11, On or about May 18, 2012, Respondent's employee made a maintenance record 

entry, which included the maintenance referenced in paragraph 6, approv:ng 

N112RM for return to service. 

12. The maintenance record entry referenced in paragraph I I did not contain the 

aircraft total time in service. 

13. Respondent's Repair Station Manual and Quality Control Manual requires an 

"Approved for Return to Service" maintenance record entry state, "I certi"ty that 

this aircraft has been inspected/repaired/maintained in accordance with (insert 

type) inspection and was determined to be in an airworthy condition." 

141006 
02/19/2014 12:19 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 

14. The maintenance record entry referenced in paragraph 11 did not contain the 

statement referenced in paragraph I 3. 

15. Between March 2, 2012, and April4, 2012, Respondent's employees perfonned 

maintenance on a Beech C23 aircraft, Civil Registration No. Nl8795. 

5 

I 6. Respondent's Repair Station Manual and Quality Control Manual, section 2, 

page 6, states, "Upon completion of a work item, the mechanic will sign off the 

[discrepancy form (FRM-HTN-1 06)] using his initials indicating that the item is 

complete and ready for inspection ... The inspector will then inspect the irem to 

assure conformance to specifications and established workmanship standards ... 

Inspection acceptance will be indicated by the inspector's stamp." 

17. Respondent's mechanics did not sign off all completed work items on the FRMHTN-.!06 forthe maintenance referenced in paragraph 15. 

18. Respondent's inspectors did not provide stamp" for all items on the FRM-HTN1 06 for the maintenance referenced in paragraph 15. 

!9. The maintenance referenced in paragraph 15 included performance of a l 00 

hour/annual inspection. 

20. The maintenance referenced in paragraph 19 included compliance with AD 87-

02-08. 

l4l 007 
02/19/2014 12:19 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 

6 

21. AD 87-02-08 requires recurring action. 

22. The AD compliance sheet for N 18795, as filled out by Respondent's employees, 

did not notifY the operator of the time and date when the next action is required 

for AD 87-02-08. 

23. Respondent's Repair Station Manual and Quality Control Manual, chapter 3, 

page 3, states, "Special forms and checklists, such as, periodic, progressive and 

100 hour inspection forms or other special purpose forms will be cmnple11ed and 

filed with the work package'' 

24. Respondent's employees did not sign off at least 3 items on the checklist for the 

annual inspection ofN18795 refere:nced in paragraph 19. 

25. On or about April4, 2012, Respondent's employee made a maintenance record 

entry, which included !he maintenance referenced in paragraph 15, approving 

Nl8795 for return to service. 

26. The maintenance record entry referenced in paragraph 25 did not contain 11hc 

aircraft total time in service. 

27. The maintenance record entry refen:nced in paragraph 25 did not contain fhe 

statement referenced in paragraph 13. 

141008 
02/19/2014 12:19 FAX 3107256816 A\VP-7 

28. Between December 15, 2011, and May 25, 20 12, Respondent's employees 

performed maintenance and alterations on a Cessna 177 aircraft, Civil 

Registration No. N22SD, for return to service. 

29. The alterations referenced in paragraph 28 included installation of an AmSafe 

Aviation pilot and co-pilot airbag restraint system. 

30. The alteration described in paragraph 29 was a major alteration. 

31, The alteration described in paragraph 29 resulted in a change in tbe operating 

limitations contained in the approved aircraft flight manual ofN22SD. 

7 

32. On or about May 25, 20!2, a Respondent's employee made a maintenance record 

entry, which included the alteration referenced in paragraph 29, approving 

N22S D for return to service. 

33. Respondent's employees did not revise the flight manual supplement tor N22SD 

prior to approving the aircraft for return to service. 

34. Respondent's employees did not give to the owner ofN22SD, and did not 

forward to the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch, an FAA Form 337 for the 

alteration referenced in paragraph 29. 

35. The alterations referenced in paragraph 28 included installation of a J.P. 

Instruments engine monitoring system with fuel flow and carburetor option~. 

l{!j 009 
02/19/2014 12:19 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 

36. On or about May 25, 2012, Respondent's employee made a maintenance: record 

entry, which included the alteratic•n referenced in paragraph 35, approving 

N22SD for return to service. 

37. Respondent's employees did not give to the owner ofN22SD, and did not 

forward to the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch, an FAA form 33 7 for the 

alteration referenced in paragraph 35. 

38. At all relevant times, John Peavy was employed by Respondent as a mechanic 

and an inspector. 

39. The maintenance referenced in paragraph 28 included removal ofthe glove box 

door on N22SD and fabrication of a mount for the "new JPI instrument," which 

were accomplished by Mr. Peavy. 

40. Respondent's Repair Station Manual and Quality Control Manual, section 2, 

141010 

8 

page 1, states, "Any inspector; that accomplished work as a mechanic will have 

that work inspected by another inspector, just as any mechanic would. Inspectors 

will indicate their acceptance of work performed with the application ofthe 

inspector's stamp next to the item on the work on form (FRM-HTN-1 06). '' 

4!. Mr. Peavy did not have· the work referenced in paragraph 39 inspected by another 

inspector. 
02/19/2014 12:19 FAX 3107256816 AlVP-7 

42. The maintenance referenced in paragraph 28 included performance of a · 00 

hour/annual inspection. 

43. The maintenance referenced in paragraph 42 included compliance with AD 

20 l 1-1 0-09 and AD 72-03-03 R3. 

44. AD 2011-10-09 and AD 72-03-03 R3 require recurring action. 

45. The AD compliance sheet for N22SD, as filled out by Respondent's employees, 

did not notify the operator of the time and date when the next action is required 

for AD 201 H0-09 and AD 72-03-03 R3. 

9 

46. Respondent's employees did not sign off at least 12 items on the checklist for the 

l 00 hour/annual inspection ofN112RM referenced in paragraph 42. 

47. On or about May 25, 20)2, Respondent's employee made a maintenance record 

entry, which included the maintenance referenced in paragraphs 39, 42, and 43, 

approving N22SD for return to service. 

48. The maintenance record entry referenced in paragraph 4 7 did not contain the 

aircraJl: total time In service. 

49. The maintenance record entry referenced in paragraph 47 did not contain the 

statement referenced in paragraph I 3. 

lilJOll 
02/19/2014 12:19 FAX 3107256816 AIVP-7 

m. 

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

sections of the Federal Aviation Regulations (Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations!: 

10 

a. 145.207(a), which states that a certificated repair station must prepare and follow 

a repair station manual acceptable to the FAA; 

b. 145.211 (b), which states that repair station personnel must follow the quality 

control system when performing maintenance, preventive maintenance, or 

alterations under the repair station certificate and operations specifications; 

c. 43 J I (a}(2), which states that the person approving or disapproving for re1um to 

service an aircraft, airframe, aircralt engine, propeller, appliance, or component 

part a'fter any inspection perfonned in accordance with part 91, 125, 

§ 135.411 (a)(l), or§ 135.419 shall make an entry in the maintenance record of 

that equipment containing the following information ___ (2) The date of the 

inspection and aircraft total time in service; 

d. 43.5(b), which states that no person may approve for return to service any 

aircra'ft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance, that has undergone 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless- (b) The 

repair or alteration form authorized by or furnished by the Administrator has 

been execuTed in a manner prescribed by the Administrator; 

141012 
02/19/2014 12:19 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 141 013 

11 

e. 43.5(c), which states that no person may approve for return to service any 

aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance, that has undergone 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless- (c) If a 

repair or an alteration results in any change in the aircraft operating limitations or 

flight data contained in the approved aircraft llight manual, those operating 

limitations or t1ight data are appropriately revised and set forth as presc6bed in 

§ 91.9 of this chapter; and 

f. Part 43, Appendix B(a), which states that, except as provided in paragraphs (b), 

(c), and (d) of this appendix, each person performing a major repair or major 

alteration shall- (l) Execute FAA Form 337 at least in duplicate; (2) Give a 

signed copy of that form to the aircraft owner; and (3) Forward a copy ofthat 

form to the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 

within 48 hours after the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance 

is approved for return to service. 

IV. 

I. Pursuant to Title 49 U.S.C. Seccion 46301 (a)(5)(A), Respondent is subject to 

a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000.00 for each of the violations alleged. 

2, Under the facts and circumstanc.es of this case, a civil penalty of$49,500.00 

is appropriate. 
02/19/2014 12:19 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 

12 

WHEREFORE, the Complainant, respectfully requests that the Administrati1JC Law 

Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $49,500.00 

Respectfully submitted, 

.// .-/) j/ /f-«~.;~ 

Adam Runkel 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

DATED: FE3 1 9 2014 

lilJ 014 
02/19/2014 12:20 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 

13 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certil'y that on this date I hav•· sent by facsimile and placed in the United 

States mail, postage prepaid, certified mail -return receipt requested, the executed original 

and one copy of the Complaint, addressed as Jollows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 

Facsimile: (202) 493-5142 

1 further cetiil'y that on this date l have placed in the United States mail, postage 

prepaid, certified mail- return receipt requested, and regular mail, a true copy of the 

Complaint, addressed as follows: 

Hatton Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Premier Aviation 

Ashok Vij, CEO/President 

1951 East Airport Drive 

Tucson, AZ 85756 

Dated: FEB 1? 2014 

JeffKambe , egal Technician 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

Lawndale, California 

lilJ 015 
02/19/2014 12:18 FAX 3107256816 A\VP-7 li!J 001 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Office of the Regional Counsel, AWP-7 

PO Box92007 

-· Phone 

Fax: 

From 

Title: 

Date: 

Pages w/covec 

I 

(202) 493-5142 

Adam Runkel 

FAA Attorney, AWP-7,12 

February 19, 2014 

16 

D Per your Request 

_j 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Telephone: (425) 227-2914 

Facsimile: (310) 725-6816 

Email: 

Facsimile 

Description of item being transmitted: 

Complaint 

D For Review D Please Comment 

D For Coordination A Hard Copy to Follow via US MAIL 

NOTES/COMMENTS: 

RE: Administrator, FAA v. Holton Enterprises, Inc., FM Case No. 2012WP070156 

The information contained ·,n this facsimile message is intended for the use of the designated addressee only. 

The information transmitted may be subject to the attorney-client privih;ge or may be protected under the Privacy 

Act. lr you are not the designated addressee and you receive this document through inadvertent error, any further 

review, dissemin<Jtion, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, IF YOU RECEIVE THIS 

COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING (31 0) 725-

7100 .~NO DESTROY THE ORIGINAL OF THIS COMMUNICATION. Thank You. 

0 U.S. Depanm~nt o( Transportation 
February 06, 2014 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue 

SW, Washington DC 20591 

ATIN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Room 2W1000 

Subject: Case No. 2012WP070156 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

RECElVED 

FEB 1 8 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

I formally request a hearing for the Case No. 2012WP070156 per section 13.16 of the Federal 

Regulations. 

Please let me know if the above information is correct or you need additional information. I can be 

reached at the phone number and address below. 

Sincerely 

ibjJ.~;? Ash~k Vij 

Hatton Enterprises Inc. DBA Premier Aviation 

President/CEO 

1951 E. Airport Dr. 

Tucson AZ 85756 

FAA Repair Station # H3ER052N 

520-907-8926 

CC: Adam Runkel 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

FE3 -4 2014 

Westem-Pacific Region 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

RECEIVED 

FEB 1 8 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

Telephone: (425) 227-2914 

Facsimile: (310) 725-6816 

Case No. 20!2WP070156 

REGULAR & CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED L013 · I 0 81 

Hotton Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Premier Aviation 

Ashok Vij, CEO/President 

1951 East Airport Drive 

Tucson,~ 85756 

F!NAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY 

You were advised through a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, dated May 6, 2013, that the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of 

$49,500.00. On July 3, 2013, an informal conference was held in this case. 

After considering all the evidence in this matter, including the information presented by 

Hotton Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Premier Aviation at, and subsequent to, the informal 

conference it appears that: 

I. Hotton Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Premier Aviation (Hotton) is, and at all relevant 

times has been, the holder of Air Agency Certificate, No. H3ER052N, 

authorizing it to operate an approved Repair Station. 

2. Hotton's Repair Station Manual and Quality Control Manual states, "It is the 

responsibility of the Chieflnspector and Avionics Manager to assure that only 

calibrated equipment is available for use by the Mechanic/Technicians." 

3. As of May 30, 2012, non-calibrated equipment was available for use by Hotton 

mechanics and technicians, including; 

a. Fluke 27 Mulimeter; 

b. Jan Aero Test Set, serial number 380608; 

c. Pressure Gauge 0-5000, Control# 1 006; and