UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
IN THEMATTER OF AERIAL CROP PROTECTION, INC. 

# RECEIVED MAR- 42013 FAADocketNo. FAA-2012-1262 

# HEARlNG DOCKET (Civil PenaltyAction)
MOTIONFORDECISION ONTHE PLEADINGS ORINTHEALTERNATIVE, MOTION FORHEARING ON SANCTION ONLY Complainant, by and through the undersigned counsel, pursuant to §13.218(£)(5) ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.F.R. 13.218(£)(5)), hereby files its Motion for Decision onthe Pleadings
or in the alternative, Motion for Hearing on Sanction Only. In support thereof, Complainant states the following:
I. Section 13.209(a) ofthe Rules ofPractice requires arespondentto file a written answer to the complaint, or file a written motionpursuantto §13.208(d) or §13.218(£)(1-4) instead offiling
an answer, notlaterthan 30 days after service ofthe complaint. 2. The complaint, which contained a paragraph informingRespondent it was required to file
awritten answer not later than 30 days afterthe date shownonthe certificate ofservice, was filed

### on December 10, 20121 

### As of this date, Complainant has not received a written answer. Therefore, Respondenthas not met the filing deadline pursuantto Section 13.209(a). 3. 

### The 30-day deadline for filing an answer cannot be extended without a showing ofgood
cause. In the Matter ofRobinson, FAA Order No. 95-28 (1997). "A showing ofgood cause is mandatory. Without it, failure to file an answer by the deadline may not be excused." In the Matter ofAtlantic World Airways, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 95-28 (1995). Moreover, Rule l3.209(f) states that failure to file an answer without good cause shall be deemed an admission ofthe truth ofeach allegation contained in the complaint. See, e.g., In the Matter ofLarry'sFlying Services, Inc., FAA Order No. 98-4 (1998). Since Respondent has not filed an answer and has not shown good cause for its failure to file an answer, the allegations in the complaint should be deemed admitted. 4. 

### As the allegations are deemed admitted, there remain no genuine issues ofmaterial fact. Consequently, Complainant is entitled to a judgment on the pleadings. See 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.218(!)(5). The FAA Decisionmaker has previously held that an order assessing civil penalty shall be assessed when the respondent has failed to answer the complaint without showing good
cause. FAA vs. Playter, FAA Order No. 90-0015 (1990), affd, 933 F.2d 1009 (61 h 

### Cir. 1991). Thus, the only remaining issue is sanction.

1PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to Title 14 CFR Section 13.209(a), you are required to file a written answer to this Complaint, or a written Motion to Dismiss if appropriate, not later than 30 days after the date shown on the Certificate ofService which follows. See page 2 ofExhibit I. 25. The complaint charged Respondent with a violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). Specifically, the complaint alleged Respondent violated Section 137.11(a) ofthe FARs when it performed commercial aerial chemical operations without, or in violation of, an agricultural aircraft operator certificate. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 4630l(a)-(d), Respondent is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $1,100 for each ofthe violations alleged. As the complaint alleged a violation of Section 137.ll(a) occurred each day between August 24, 2011 and September 21, 20II, when the operations were conducted, Complainant determined a civil penalty of$16,575 was appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that the Motion for Decision on the Pleadings be granted and Respondent assessed a civil penalty in the amount of$16,575. In the alternative, Complainant respectfully requests the Motion for Hearing on Sanction Only be granted.

Submittedthis 

# 11/{t--/day ofFebruary, 2013.

SeniorAttorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel

3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Decision on the Pleadings or In the Alternative, Motion for Hearing on Sanction Only In the Matter ofAerial Crop Protection, Inc., FAA DocketNo. FAA-2012-1262, was served viaregularmailto: Preston 

### J. Fields, Sr., Esq. Preston 

### J. Fields, P.A. 11211 Prosperity Farms Rd. Suite C-301 Palm Beach, FL 33410 FAX: (561) 799-0388 The Honorable J. E. Sullivan DOT, Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 FAX: (202) 366-7536 Federal Aviation Administration HearingDocket, AGC-430 ATTN: Stephanie McClain 800 Independence Ave., SW Wilbur WrightBuilding, Suite 2W1000 Washington, DC 20591 FAX: (202) 493-5020

# ~A~ Program Analyst 

## FEB 2 B

### 2013 Date



### 4U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRA.TION, Complainant,
vs. AERIAL CROP PROTECTION Respondent.
JUDGE NOT YET ASSIGNED FAA Docket No. Judge

COMPLAINT The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 ofthe Rules ofPractice (!4 C.F.R. 13.208), and states as follows: I. On November 8, 20 !2, Respondent, Aerial Crop Pretection was advised through a Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of$16,575. On November 30,2012, the Agency Attomey received a written request for a hearing from the Respondent. IL 1. On or about August 24, 201 I, representatives of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducted a routine inspection ofAerial Crop Protection, Inc. (ACP) at the Belle Glade State Municipal Airport (XI0). 2. Representatives observed N2033R, an Air Tractor AT-504, perform aerial chemical operations over fields on the northem borderofXlO. 3. At the time ofthe operations in paragraph 2, ACP did not hold a valid agricultural aircraft operatorcertificate. 4. At the time ofthe operations in paragraph 2, ACP was informed that any aerial chemical operations conducted without a valid agricultural aircraft operator certificate could ben violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations. 

# I GOVERNMENT ; EXHIBIT 

# i .1.5. On or about September 6, 2011, ACP was again informed that any aerial chemical operations conducted without a valid agricultural aircraft operator certificate could be in violation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations. 6. Between August 24, 20II and September 21, 20II, ACP perfom1ed commercial aerial chemical operations on United States Sugar Corporation's fields.

IlL
7. As a result, ACP violated Section 137.11 (a) ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations in that except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) ofthis section, no person may conduct agricultural aircraft operations without, or in violation of, an agricultural aircraft operatorcertificate issued under this part. 8. Under49 U.S.C. Sections 4630l(a)-(d), you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,I00 for each ofthe violations noted. By reason ofthe foregoing facts and circumstances, we propose to assess a civil penalty in the amount of$16,575. 9 Underthe facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil penalty of$16,575 is appropriate. WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of$16,575. Respectfully submitted this 

# /Df' day ofDecember, 2012.

Attorney Office ofthe Regional C unsel PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to Title 14 CFR Section 13.209(a), you are required to file a written answer to this Complaint, or a written Motion to Dismiss ifappropriate, not laterthan 30 days afterthe date shown on the Certificate ofService which follows.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing Complaint has been mailed this date by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the following: Hearing Docket Clerk FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2W1000 Wilbur Wright Building 800 Independence Avenue, S W Washington, DC 20591 PrestonJ. Fields, Sr. Preston J Fields, P.A. 11211 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite C-30I Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410

# GFRALDE~- Program Analyst Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

### DEC 1 0 ZOIZ Dated (original 

### + I copy)