# f



# ~VED OCT 

# 2 0

# mr U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
NOVO HELICOPTERS, INC. FAA DOCKET NO. CP93WP0278 (Civil Penalty Action)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE This proceeding arises from a c omplaint dated July 1, 1993, alle g ing violations of the Federal Aviation Act/Regulations and Respo ndent's request for hearing dated June 12, 1993. The undersigned administrative law judge was assigned to the proceeding by Notice served July 29, 1993. The complaint sought a civil penalty of $1,000 for an alleged violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations, 14 C.F.R. §§ 39.3 1 and 91.7(a) 2 , in that: 1. Respondent, at all times mentioned in the complaint, was the
owner and operator of Piper Model PA-34-200, civil aircraft registra tion number N1508G. 2. Airworthiness Directive 81-18-04 R2 (requiring that at 2000 hours since new or the last major overhau l , the oil pump driven impeller and shaft be repla c ed unless it can be es t ablished that a sintered iro n impe l ler is n ot i nstalled) applied t o Nl508G.

2 14 C.F.R. § 39.3 prov ides that: "No person may opera te a product t o which an airworthiness directive applies exc e pt in acc o rdance with the requirements of that airworthiness directive." 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a) provides that: "No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in airworthy condition."- 2 - 3. On or abo ut February 11, 1992, Respondent operated N1508G 2.7 hours beyond 2000 hou r s since N1508G's last major overhaul. 4. Respondent did not comply with Airworthiness Directive 81- 18-04 R2 at all times of the operation of N1508G on February 11, 1992. II. By motion dated August 23, 1993, the Fed eral Aviation Administrati on (FAA) mo ves, pursuant to sections 13.218(a) a nd 13.209(f), for a n o der d e eming allegations admi tted and to issue an order assess i ng civ"l pena l ty. In s upport of th a t motion FAA
ass e rts that FAA se ved the complaint in this case on July 1, 1993, and that to date F has not received an answer. Respondent has filed no answer or to FAA's m o tion. III. The Rules of Pra FAA Civil Penalty Actions, set forth in Part 13, Subpart G, of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F
. R. alia, that respondents must fil e a written
a n s wer or m o tion wi hin 30 days after serv ice o f t he ccmplaint ( § 1 3.209(a)), an answJ r shall admit, deny , or state t hat the person without suffi c i ent nowledge or information to admi t or deny, e ach
num b e red p ara graph f the c omplaint(§ 13.209(e)) , and failure to is

file an an s we r with, ut good cause is deemed an admission of each allegation in the c ol mplaint (§ 13.209 (f)). The Judge's Order, served August 3, 1 993, referred to the obligation to fi l e an answer within 30 days after service of the complaint and directed Respondent to file a proposed procedural schedule and to provide a

### - 3 - t e l ephone number w he re he c o uld be r e ached for t e lephone
co nfe r enc es. That Order prompte d no r e sp o nse fr om Respondent. The law does no t favor defaults, 3 and we understand that section 13
. 209 ( f) is intended to ensure that a re s pondent will file a meaningful answer -- not to provide a default trap for the unwary. Indeed, the ''Supp l ementary Information" pr efacing the initial adopti on of the rules emphasized that they "were drafte d so that individuals who represent themselves are n ot misled by o verlyte c hni c al pro cedural requirements. " 4 Ac co rdingly, we hav e refused to grant default judgments when R e spondents may have b een confu s ed by t e c hnical require m e nts of these proceed ings. 5 Nev ertheless, to date Re sponde nt has failed to file an answer to the c omplaint or provide the Judge or FAA with a current address. Attempts to serve R e s po ndent with the Judg e's August 3, 1993 Orde r and to contact him for a telephone prehearing conference have been

3 See, e.g.,

**I~** the M atter of Safety

**Eg~ipment** and Sign Co., Ltd., FAA Order No. 92-76, p. 5 (Dec ember 21, 1992); In the Matter of David Ll oyd Cornwall, FAA Order No. 92-47, p. 7 (July 22, 1992) ( ''Wherever p o ssible, c a ses should be dispo sed of on the merits after a hea ri n g, rather than summarily b ec ause o f a p r ocedural defe c t."). 53 Fed. R e g . 34649, Sept. 7, 1988. The Suppl e mentary Info rmat ion also st ate d th a t: " The rule allows an i ndividual to submit the an s wer i n t he f o rm of a l e tte r and in leg i ble, h andwritten form. Thi s s ec tion is inte nded to provide gre at fl e xibility and easy ac c ess in the hearing process so t hat an indivi d ual is not f orc ed to hire an attorney for the pro c eedings. " Id.
5 See, e.g., Dave L. Turner, Docket CP89WP0060, Order dated August 22, 1989; Carrie Carmen Helbert, Docket CP89WP0073, Order dated August 17, 1989; Dawn M. Lewis, FAA Docket CP89S00108, Order dated July 17, 1989.- 4

- unsuccessful. 6 Moreover, Respondent has made no attempt to keep FAA or the Judge apprised as to his whereabouts or where he may be contacted in order to discuss these issues. 7 It has been over 105 days since the complaint was forwarded to Respondent by certified mail. We s ee no reason to continue to delay this proceeding. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Respondent by November 20, 1993, shall call the Judge at (202) 366-2137 to arrange a telephone prehearing conference or file a response indicating why the allegations of the complaint should not be deemed admitted and an order assessing civil penalty should not be iss ue d against him. 2. Absent such a call or filing by Responde nt by November 20, 1993, the allegations of the complaint shall be deemed admitted and the comp laint shall become an order assessing amount of $1,000.

Dated: O c tober 20, 1993

6 The FAA's complaint indic ates that R e spondent's address of July 1, 1993, was 2837 East Spring Street, Long Be ach, California. The August 3, 1993 , Order was sent to that addre ss regular mail but was re turne d "moved left no address, unable to forward, return to s ender." On August 14, 1993, the Order was maile d to the same address wi th the same res ult. as by

See James W. Franklin, FAA Doc ket CP92EA0232, Order served June 30, 19 92 (Re spondent's failure t o notify FAA of a change of address and to fo ll ow up on his r equest for hearing may be con sidered in finding that R espondent no longer wishes to pursue his r e quest for h e aring ); J e ffre y Wayne N orthern , FAA Docket CP91CE00 02, O

r d er date d June 12, 1991 ( R e sponde nt's fail ure to keep FAA or the Judge apprised of his whereabouts may be considered in finding R

espondent in default for failure to answer complaint).

### Novo Helicopters, Inc. Rafael Novo, President 2837 E
. Spring Street Long Beach, CA 90806 Naomi 

## c. Tsuda Attorney SERVICE LIST

Federal Aviation Administration Wester n-Pacific Region, AWP-7 P
. O. Box 92007 Wor l dWay Postal Center Los Angel es, California 90009 Hearing Docket (2 copies) R

oom 92 4A

- A GC-10 Federal Aviation A dministration 800 Independe nce Avenue, S.W. Washington , D.C
. 20591 The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder Administrative Law Judge Office of Hearings, M-50 Room 9228 U
. S. Department of Transportation 4 00 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C
. 20590 TEL: (202) 366-2142 FAX : (202) 366-7536 FAA Doc ket CP93W P0278 (Civil Penalty Action)