In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: October 14, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0716 

TYLER PENNYWITT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Respondent ) 

Case No. 2012S0150128 

ORDER DENYING THE RESPONDENT'S MOTION 

TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT 

ON THE GROUNDS OF UNTIMELY FILING 

On June 26, 2014, the parties convened by telephone for a Summary Judgment Motion 

Conference, and presented oral argument on the FAA's May 5, 2014 Motion for Summary 

Judgment ("Motion for SJ") and the Respondent's May 29, 2014 Motion to Dismiss and 

Response to Motion for Summary Judgment ("Resp. Dismiss"). 

On June 27, 2014, an Order Reserving Motions, Setting Deadlines for Filing 

Supplemental Materials, and Continuing the Hearing was filed. Among other things, this Order 

reserved the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and set an August 22, 2014 deadline for the parties 

to file supplemental materials on the dismissal issue. 

On August 5, 2014, the FAA filed its Supplemental Submission on Motion for Summary 

Judgment ("FAA Supplement"). 

On August 25, 2014, the prose Respondent, Mr. Tyler Pennywitt, filed a Supplemental 

Submission on Motion for Summary Judgment ("Resp. Supplement"). 

This Order is limited in scope, and addresses only the parties' arguments regarding the 

Respondent's allegation that the FAA's Complaint was untimely filed. 

A. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss 

The FAA had previously acknowledged in this case, when it filed its August 30, 2013 
Complaint with the FAA Hearing Docket on September 6, 2013, that it was filing the Complaint 

"well-outside ofthe appeal period provided in the Federal Aviation Regulations." (8/30/13 FAA 

Cover Letter to Complaint). The FAA then provided a short explanation for why it had filed the 

Complaint outside the twenty day time period. (!d.) Although the prose Respondent's Motion 

focused on double jeopardy as a ground for dismissal (Resp. Dismiss, 1 ), it also incorporated an 

argument that the FAA had failed to file a timely Complaint (id. at 3). As a result, the 

Respondent has adequately raised the timeliness issue for consideration and ruling. 1 The issue is 

whether the FAA failed to file a timely Complaint, and if so, whether good cause exists to excuse 

such failure. 

B. Summary of Applicable Law 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.16(h), a respondent who wants a formal adjudication in an 

FAA civil enforcement action must "file a written request for a hearing with the hearing docket 

clerk ... and shall mail a copy of the request" to the FAA attorney. Upon receipt of the written 

request, the FAA attorney must file the original and one copy of the complaint with the hearing 

docket clerk "not later than 20 days after receipt." 14 C.P.R. § 13.208(a). 

If the FAA attorney fails to file a complaint within 20 days after receipt of a request for 

hearing, the action may be dismissed, unless the FAA can show good cause for the delay. In the 

Matter of Vincent J. Medel, 1993 WL 833107, FAA Order No. 93-13, Decision and Order, at 6-7 

(Mar. 25, 1993)(FAA's late-filed complaint is dismissed); In the Matter of Aero-Weld, Inc., 2013 

WL 456770, FAA-20.12-0909, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss (January 31, 2013); In re 

Francis Taylor, Order of Administrative Law Judge (August 15, 1994), appeal dismissed, FAA 

Order No. 94-42 (Dec. 16, 1994)( complaint dismissed because good cause not shown by FAA 

for filing complaint 57 days after receipt of request for hearing). 

C. General Factual Summary 

Ori June 4, 2012, the Respondent was arrested by Florida sheriffs for shining a laser 

pointer at sheriff's helicopter. (Resp. Dismiss, 1; Exh. C-A.) After this arrest, Special Agent 

White ("SA White"), an employee with the Department of Transportation's ("DOT'') Office of 

1 It should be noted, however, that the court may also raise the timeliness issue sua sponte. See, Eric W. Hereth, 

FAA Order No. 94-7, Decision and Order (Mar. 10, 1994). 

Page 2 of 11 
the Inspector General ("OIG"), began a criminal investigation. (FAA Supp, 2.) 

Four (4) months later, on October 4, 2012, the U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of 

Florida, indicted the Respondent on federal charges for the laser pointing offense under a newly 

enacted statute, 18 U.S.C. § 39A. Approximately ten (10) months later, on April 17, 2013, 2 the 

Respondent pled guilty to one violation of 18 U.S.C. § 39A. (Motion for SJ, Exh. C-D, 1.) 

Approximately three (3) months later, on August 1, 2013, the Respondent appeared again in 

federal district court and was sentenced on the criminal offense. (Motion for SJ, Exh. C-F, 1.) 

While the federal criminal. case was being prosecuted, the FAA Regional Counsel 

separately initiated and pursued a civil enforcement action for the laser pointing offense. 

Specifically, on December 11, 2012, just two months after the Respondent was indicted on 

criminal charges, the FAA served the Respondent with the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty. 

(Mot. Dismiss, 2; Exh. R-5.) Three (3) weeks later, on January 3, 2013, the FAA served the 

Respondent with the Amended Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty ("Amended NPCP"). (Resp. 

Dismiss, 2; Exh. R-6.) The Amended NPCP "correct[ed] a typographical error in the amount of 

the proposed penalty" from $1,100 to $11,000. (Resp. Dismiss, Exh. R-5.) 

On April11, 2013, the FAA served the Respondent with the Final Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty ("FNPCP"). (FAA Supp., 3; Resp. Dismiss, 3; Exh. R-7.) The FNPCP directed the 

Respondent to "mail or personally deliver" a request for hearing within "fifteen ( 15) days." (Exh. 

R-7, 1.) The FNPCP further directed the Respondent: 

Your request for hearing must be sent to the Federal Aviation Administration, 600 

Independence Ave. SW., Wilbur Wright Building, suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC- 430 (if delivery is in person 

or via expedited courier service) or Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Ave. SW., Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC- 430 (if delivery is via U.S. 

mail), and a copy must be sent to the undersigned attorney. 

(Exh. R-7, 2.)(bold in original). 

The FAA attorney signing the document was Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson. There was no 

2 Although the prose Respondent recalled that he pled guilty on April 10, 2013 (R. Supp, 2), the plea documentation 

was signed on April 17,2013 by the Respondent, his attorney Mr. Stone, and two U.S. Attorneys. (Motion for SJ, 

Exh. C-D, 11.) The U.$. Magistrate also signed a "Report and Recommendation Concerning Plea of Guilty" that 

same day, on April17, 2013. (Motion for SJ, Exh. C-E, 1.) 

Page 3 of 11 
specific street/city address or mailing process listed in the FNPCP instructions (e.g., certified 

mail, regular mail, fax, email, etc.) for serving a copy ofthe request on Mr. Stephenson. (Resp. 

Dismiss, Exh. R-7, 2.) However, the letterhead on the first page ofthe FNPCP listed the 

following mailing address for the FAA's Southern Region Office ofthe Regional Counsel: "PO 

Box 20636, Atlanta, GA 30320". 

The Respondent's criminal defense attorney, Mr. Mitchell A. Stone, timely responded to 

the FNPCP by filing a written Request for Hearing ("Request") on April 17, 20 13-the same day 

that the Respondent pled guilty to the federal offense. (Resp. Dismiss, Exh. R-8.) 

The Respondent asserted that Mr. Stone served the 4/17/13 Request by certified mail on 

the FAA Hearing Docket, and by regular mail on the FAA regional attorney. (Req. Hr'g 1; Resp. 

Dismiss, 3; Exh. R-8.) The evidence shows that the 4117/13 Request was properly addressed to 

the Hearing Docket Clerk located at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC. (Req. Hr'g, 

1.) A certified mail receipt, confirmed as received by the "Fed Aviation Admin" on "4/18/13" 

proved that the FAA's Hearing Docket Clerk received the certified mailing. (Exh. R-8.) On page 

one of the Respondent's 4/17/13 Request, the following "cc" (i.e., carbon copy) was also listed: 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Esquire 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

(Req. Hr'g, 1.) 

It was undisputed that this was the same regional office letterhead address utilized on 

page 1 ofthe FAA's FNPCP. 

On August 8, 2013, approximately four (4) months after the Respondent had served his 

Request, the FAA issued an Order Assessing Civil Penalty ("OACP"). 3 (FAA Supp, 3; Resp. 

Dismiss, 6; Exh. R-9). The FAA asserted that it had issued this OACP in the mistaken belief that 

the Respondent had not responded to the April 11, 2013 FNPCP. It was undisputed that the FAA 

issued the OACP just seven (7) days after the Respondent appeared in U.S. District Court, and 

3 The date of August 8, 2013 appears handwritten (author unknown) at the top of the OACP (Exh. R-9), but the 

typed section of the document contains no date at all. Nevertheless, the parties agreed that the date of August 8, 

2013 was accurate. 

Page 4 of 11 
was sentenced on the federal crime. Upon receipt of the OACP (date unspecified) Mr. Stone 

immediately telephoned Mr. Stevenson, the FAA attorney. According to the FAA, Mr. Stone did 

not mention the Request he had filed. Instead, Mr. Stone "complained" about the OACP, in part 

on the grounds that the U.S. Attorney had misled Mr. Stone and the Respondent to believe that 

the Respondent's federal criminal conviction would be fully dispositive of the entire incident. 

(FAA Supp., 3). In response, the FAA stated that the criminal conviction was not fully 

dispositive, and that the FAA would not withdraw its OACP. (!d.) 

On August 14, 2014,just six (6) days after the OACP was issued, Mr. Stone filed a 

Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment and Sentence in the U.S. District Court criminal 

proceeding, alleging double jeopardy.4 As part of this Motion to Vacate, Mr. Stone attached a 

copy ofthe Respondent's 4/17/13 Request. (FAA Supp, 3). Twelve (12) days later, on August 

26, 2014, SA White emailed to the FAA attorney a copy of the Respondent's Motion to Vacate 

and Set Aside Judgment and Sentence, filed in the Respondent's criminal case. 5 (FAA Supp., 4.) 

This email also included the 4117/13 Request attached to the Respondent's Motion to Vacate. 

(!d.) 

Four (4) days later, after confirming with the FAA Hearing Docket that it had received 

the Request, the FAA filed its Complaint on August 30,2013. (Compl. 3.) The FAA's cover 

letter to the Complaint stated: 

The FAA did not receive a copy of the request for hearing until it was referred by 

a third party on August 26, 2013, well outside of the appeal period provided in the 

Federal Aviation Regulations. However, since the request for hearing inCludes a 

cc to the undersigned, the FAA is willing to presume that the service failure was 

4 The U.S. District Court denied the Motion, on the grounds that the issue was not ripe under the federal criminal 

proceeding, since it was "the government's first attempt to punish" the Respondent. (R Supp, Exh. R-15, 2.) The 

Respondent's Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of double jeopardy in this action will be addressed in a separate 

Order. 

5 It was undisputed that while the federal criminal case was being prosecuted, SA White was actively involved, and 

attended every criminal court appearance. (Resp Supp, 2.) SA White was an employee with the U.S. Department of 

Transportation's Office oflnspector General. SA White had assisted the U.S. Attorney with the criminal action. This 

assistance included coordinating the exchange of documentation between the FAA and the U.S. Attorney's Office 

for use in the criminal proceeding, such as a police officer's witness statement given by the Florida sheriffs to the 

FAA about the incident. (FAA Supp, 2 and Exh. K.) 

Page 5 of 11 
the result of a postal error, rather than a failure by Respondent to perfect his 

request for a hearing by properly serving the FAA. 

D. Discussion and Analysis 

The Respondent has the burden of proof to show proper service of his request for hearing 

on both the Hearing Docket and the FAA attorney. The Respondent's 4/17114 Request was not 

accompanied by a certificate of service, as described by 14 C.P.R. §13.211(c). In the absence of 

a certificate of service, the date of service may be established by proof of a postmark or "other 

mailing date." 

1. Respondent's Request was Timely Filed with the Hearing Docket 

Brief History of Hearing Docket Filing Requirement: As originally promulgated in 1988, 

the FAA's Rules of Practice only required a respondent to "file a written request for a hearing 

with the agency attorney." 53 Fed. Reg. 34646, 34655 (Sep. 7, 1988) (codified at 14 C.P.R.§ . 

13.16(i) (1989)). There was no requirement to file the request with the Hearing Docket. In 1990, 

however, the FAA revised its rules to require a respondent to "file a written request for a hearing 

with the hearing docket clerk ... and mail a copy of the request to the agency attorney." 55 Fed. 

Reg. 27548,27575 (Jul. 3, 1990) (codified at 14 C.P.R.§ 13.16(f) (1991). 6 

In its 1990 final rule discussion, the FAA noted that although it was a large organization 

with limited resources, its goal was to initiate and adjudicate civil penalty actions 

"expeditiously." (55 P.R. 27548-01, 27554 (July 3, 1990). As a result, revisions were made to 

multiple rules of practice regarding the filing and se.rvice of documents in order to "ensure that 

documents are regularly sent to the same office or person, who can either respond or forward 

those documents within the organization." (Jd. at 27557). Thus, filing a Request with the 

Hearing Docket with concurrent service of the Request upon the FAA attorney involved became 

6 14 C.F.R. § 13.16(h) provides in part as follows: 

(h) Request for a hearing. Any person charged with a violation may request a hearing, pursuant to paragraph (t)(3) 

or paragraph (g)(2) (ii) of this section, to be conducted in accordance with the procedures in subpart G of this part. A 

person requesting the hearing shall file a written request for hearing with the hearing docket clerk, using the 

appropriate address set forth in section 13.210(a) ofthis part, and shall mail a copy of the request to the agency 

attorney. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.16(h) (italics added). 

Page 6 of 11 
required. This allowed for the most expeditious communication with the FAA attorney who was 

handling the civil enforcement action. 

Agreed Timely Filing: The FAA agreed the Respondent had proved that on April 18, 

2013 the FAA Hearing Docket accepted receipt of the Respondent's certified mailing of his 

4/17113 Request. Pursuant to 14 C.F .R. § 13.211 (h) and 14 C.F .R. § 13 .16(g)(2), the Respondent's 

proof submission is presumptive evidence of valid and timely service on the Hearing Docket. 

Thus, the Respondent's Request was timely filed with the Hearing Docket. 

2. Separate Proof of Service on the FAA Attorney is also Required 

As noted above, a copy of the request for hearing filed with the Hearing Docket must also 

be sent to the FAA attorney involved in the action. 14 C.F.R. § 13 .16(h). 

In 1993, three years after the final rules were adopted, the FAA Administrator reiterated 

the need for a respondent to serve a copy of the request for hearing on the FAA attorney 

specifically involved in the action, and for the FAA to internally respond to or forward such mail 

as expeditiously as possible. In the decision of In the Matter of Vincent J Medel, FAA Order No. 

93-13, 1993 WL 833107 (Mar. 25, 1993), the respondent mailed a request for hearing to the 

Hearing Docket and to the FAA attorney, but incorrectly addressed the FAA attorney's envelope 

with the Hearing Docket Clerk's address. The Hearing Docket Clerk received the mail, but failed 

to forward it to the addressee-the FAA regional attorney handling the case. 

In Medel, the FAA Administrator found that even though the FAA Hearing Docket Clerk 

was an FAA employee, the Clerk was employed in a separate department than the FAA regional 

counsel's office. As a result, the Clerk should not automatically be deemed an "agent" of the 

FAA regional attorney for service attempts. Medel, FAA Order No. 93-13, 1993 WL 833107. 

The Administrator also noted that because of the "extensiveness" of the FAA, the Respondent 

had an obligation to serve the FAA attorney at the office in which the FAA attorney worked. !d. 

at *3. Nevertheless, the Administrator held that the Medel respondent's address error was 

understandable, given the lack of clear address information provided in the FNPCP for any 

mailing sent to the regional FAA attorney. 7 !d. As a result, the FAA Administrator dismissed 

7 In Medel, the regional attorney's office address was listed only on the FNPCP's letterhead on the first page. The 

attorney's office address was not listed in the FNPCP instructions for mailing, nor under the attorney's signature 

Page 7 of 11 
the complaint, in part because the Hearing Docket Clerk - as part of the FAA administration -

had an affirmative obligation to act promptly to forward misaddressed mail to the FAA regional 

attorney and should have forwarded the misaddressed FAA attorney's mail to the Southern 

Region "immediately." Medel, FAA Order No. 93-13. 1993 WL 833107 at *3. 

3. Respondent Did Not Prove April 17, 2013 Service on FAA Attorney 

While the Rules of Practice require service of the Request on both the Hearing Docket 

and the FAA attorney, attaching proof of service by certificate of service is optional. 14 C.F.R. 

§ 13.211 (c). As a result, a litigant who files a Request with the Hearing Docket and mails a copy 

to the regional FAA attorney, but who does not utilize a certificate of service, must then try to 

submit proof of service by "postmark" or "other evidence." 14 C.F.R. §13.211(d); See also, 14 

C.F.R. § 13.211(g) and (h). 8 

In the case herein, the pro se Respondent asserted that his attorney had complied with the 

FAA's written directions in the FNPCP. "Attorney Stone submitted a certified letter requesting a 

formal evidentiary hearing to the FAA copying Attorney Stevenson as directed." (Resp. Dism. 

3.) It was undisputed that the 4117/13 Request, prepared by Mr. Stone, had a "cc" (i.e., carbon 

copy) line, with the FAA regional attorney's correct name and business address listed. (Req. 

Hr'g, 1.) The prose Respondent argued that there was "no documentation for regular mail" 

(Resp. Supp, 1 ), and therefore, the Request alone should be deemed sufficient proof that a copy 

. had been mailed to the FAA attorney at his office address, via U.S. Mail, at the same time as the 

certified letter was mailed on April17, 2013 to the Hearing Docket Clerk in Washington; DC. 

(R.' s Supp. 1 ). 

The Respondent's argument is understandable, but not persuasive. The Request itself is 

insufficient to establish actual service by mail on the FAA attorney. Additional proof is normally 

required. For example (not inclusive), in lieu of a certificate of service, the Respondent could 

have presented a declarative statement from either Mr. Stone or his staff, asserting who in the 

line. Despite the passage of time since the 1993 Medel decision (i.e., 21 years), the same lack of clarity in address 

instructions exists in the FNPCP in this case. 

8 For example, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.212(g), valid service by mail may also be established if a "properly 

addressed" document is "returned" or "not claimed" or "refused." In the instance case, no such evidence was 

produced. 

Page 8 of 11 
office had prepared and mailed the Request to the FAA attorney, and when such service by mail 

had occurred. In this case, the Respondent did not present corroborative proof that any mailing to 

the FAA attorney had actually occurred on April17, 2013, or thereafter. Unlike the Medel case, 

there was no address error regarding the regional attorney's office contained in the Request, and 

therefore no obligation on the Hearing Docket Clerk to forward mail to the FAA regional 

attorney. As a result, the Respondent did not prove service by mail on April17, 2014 or 

thereafter on the FAA's regional attorney, Mr. Stevenson. 

4. Respondent Did Not Prove FAA Complaint Untimely Filed 

Section 13.208(a) provides in part: "The agency attorney shall file the original and one 

copy of the complaint with the hearing docket clerk ... not later than 20 days after receipt by the 

agency attorney of a request for hearing." 14 C.F.R. § 13.208(a). 

The Respondent asserted that the FAA failed to file a timely Complaint within the 20 day 

period, and that such failure should result in dismissal of the action. 9 However, according the 

Administrator's reasoning in the Medel decision, the triggering date for the 20-day deadline for 

the FAA attorney to file the Complaint is not the date the Request is filed with the Hearing 

Docket Clerk, but the date the FAA attorney is served with the Request (or should have received 

it). Medel, FAA Order No. 93-13, 1993 WL 833107 at *3. 

In the case herein, the Respondent seeks to start the time clock for the 20-day period on 

April 17, 2014. However, as shown in the discussion above, the Respoq.dentfailed to prove that 

the FAA attorney had been served by U.S. Mail on April 17, 2014, or should have received the 

Request on or near that date. 

Alternatively, the Respondent asserted that SA White, who was an employee of the DOT, 

should be held to be an agent of service for the FAA attorney. As noted earlier herein, SA White 

was actively involved in the Respondent's criminal proceeding, and attended every criminal 

court appearance. (Resp Supp, 2.) 

9 The 20-day time period is not jurisdictional, but does require the FAA to show good cause for filing a complaint 

outside the 20-day deadline. Larry's Flying Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 98-4, at 8 (Mar. I 0, 1998) ("Just as an 

untimely complaint is dismissed absent good cause, so too is an untimely answer dismissed absent good cause.") 

(internal citations omitted). 

Page 9 of 11 
While the record is clear that Mr. Stone filed the Motion and Request in the criminal case 

on August 14, 2014, there is no documentation of when SA White actually received a copy. The 

record only shows that, on August 26, 2014 (i.e., twelve days after Mr. Stone filed the Motion 

and Request), SA White emailed a copy of the Respondent's 4/17113 Request to the FAA 

regional attorney. (FAA Supp.~ 4.) The FAA attorney then filed the Complaint four ( 4) days 

later, on August 30, 2013. (Compl. 3.) 

Even if it were assumed, hypothetically, that SA White was a service agent for the FAA 

attorney, and that SA White received the Request on August 14,2013 (the date Mr. Stone filed it 

with the Motion in the criminal case), the 201

h day for filing the Complaint after service on 

August 14, 2013, was September 3, 2013. Since the FAA attorney filed the Complaint on August 

30, 2013-within a 20-day deadline period from August 14, 2013-there is no timeliness 

problem even under the hypothetical scenario. 

5. Date of Service of Request on FAA Attorney - August 26, 2013 

Where the FAA is responsible for delaying the FAA attorney's receipt of an otherwise 

timely served request for hearing, the complaint may be dismissed as untimely filed. Medel, 

FAA Order No. 93-13,1993 WL 833107 at *3. 

However, the evidence in this record does not support a finding that the Respondent 

served the FAA attorney with his Request, or that the FAA Complaint was untimely filed. There 

is no proofthat the FAA attorney received, might have received, or should have received the 

Respondent's 4117/13 Request before SA White emailed it to him on August 26, 2013. As a 

result, the proof submitted shows only that the FAA regional attorney received the Request on 

August 26,2013. The FAA's Complaint was filed on August 30, 2013, only four days after 

August 26, 2013, which was well within the 20-day period required by 14 C.F.R. § 13.208(a). As 

a result, the FAA's Complaint was timely filed, and whether there is good cause for a late-filed 

complaint need not be addressed. 

E. CONCLUSION 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205(a)(8), 13.208(a), and 13.218, having heard oral 

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

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

Page 10 of 11 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The date of August 26, 2013 is established as the date the FAA regional attorney was 

served with the Respondent's Request for Hearing. 

2. The FAA's August 30, 2013 filing ofthe Complaint was timely. 

3. The Respondent's inferred Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as Untimely is denied. 

4. A separate order shall issue on the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss on the ground of 

double jeopardy. 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 11 of 11 
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 2W1000 10 

Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Tyler Pennywitt 

Respondent 

4483 Hanover Park Drive 

Jacksonville, FL 32224 

TEL: 904-252-1356 

FAX: 904-928-0909 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0716 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

10 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 2Wl000, Washington, 

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