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, 

alleg ing violations of the Federal Aviation Act/Regulations and 

Respondent'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 overhaul , the oil pump driven 

impeller and shaft be repla c ed unless it can be est ablished that a 

sintered iro n impe l ler is not 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 exce pt in acco 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 assessi ng civ"l pena l ty. In s upport of tha 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 mo 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 we r or mo 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 

numb e red p aragraph 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 olmplaint (§ 13.209 (f)). The Judge's Order, 

served August 3, 1993, 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 whe re he c o uld be r e ached for t e lephone 

conf e r ences. That Order prompt e d no r e spo nse from 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 not misled by overlytec hni c al procedural requirements. "4 Ac co rdingly, we hav e refused 

to grant default judgments when Re spondents may have been confu s ed 

by t e c h nical requireme 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 Re s pondent 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 Matter 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 po ssible, c a ses should be dispo sed of on the merits after 

a hea ring, rather than summarily because o f a p r ocedural defec t."). 

53 Fed. Re g . 34649, Sept. 7, 1988. The Suppl ementary 

Inf o rmat ion also state d tha 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. Th i s 

s ection is inte nded to provide gre at fl e xibility and easy 

acc ess in the hearing process so t hat an individ ual is not 

f orc ed to hire an attorney for the proc 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 issue 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 complaint shall become an order assessing 

amount of $1,000. 

Dated: Oc tober 20, 1993 

6 The FAA's complaint indicates that Re 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 returne 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 result. 

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 llow up on his r equest for hearing may be 

considered in finding that Respondent no longer wishes to pursue his 

r e quest for h e aring ); J e ffre y Wayne Northern , FAA Docket CP91CE00 02, 

Or d er date d June 12, 1991 (Re sponde nt's fail ure to k eep FAA or the 

Judge apprised of his whereabouts may be considered in finding 

Respondent 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) 

Room 92 4A - AGC-10 

Federal Aviation Administration 

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 

400 Seventh Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C . 20590 

TEL: (202) 366-2142 

FAX : (202) 366-7536 

FAA Docket CP93WP0278 

(Civil Penalty Action)