In The Matter Of: 

## SERVED: October 14, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

DocketNo. FAA-2013-0716 TYLER PENNYWITT ) ) ) ) ) Respondent CaseNo. 2012S0150128

ORDERDENYING 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 SummaryJudgment Motion Conference, and presented oral argument onthe 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 Motionfor Summary Judgment ("Resp. Dismiss"). OnJune 27, 2014, an Order Reserving Motions, Setting Deadlines for Filing Supplemental Materials, and Continuing the Hearing was filed. Among otherthings, this Order reserved the Respondent's Motionto Dismiss and set an August 22, 2014 deadline for the parties to file supplemental materials onthe dismissal issue. On August 5, 2014, the FAA filed its Supplemental Submission on Motion for Summary Judgment ("FAA Supplement"). On August 25, 2014, theprose Respondent, Mr. Tyler Pennywitt, filed a Supplemental Submission onMotion for Summary Judgment ("Resp. Supplement"). This Orderis 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 FAAhad previously acknowledged in this case, when it filed its August 30, 2013Complaintwiththe FAAHearing Docket on September 6, 2013, that 

### itwas filing the Complaint "well-outside ofthe appeal periodprovided inthe Federal Aviation Regulations." (8/30/13 FAA Cover Letterto Complaint). The FAAthen provided a short explanation for why it had filed the Complaint outside the twenty day time period. (!d.) Although theprose Respondent's Motion focused on doublejeopardy as a ground for dismissal (Resp. Dismiss, 1 ), it also incorporated an argumentthat the FAAhad failed to file atimely Complaint (id. at 3). As a result, the Respondent has adequately raised the timeliness issue for consideration and ruling. 1 The issue is whether theFAAfailed to file a timely Complaint, and ifso, whether good cause exists to excuse suchfailure. 

### B. Summary ofApplicable Law Pursuantto 14 C.P.R.§ 13.16(h), arespondent who wants aformal adjudication in an FAA civil enforcement action must "file a written requestfor a hearing with the hearing docket clerk

... and shall mail a copy ofthe request" to the FAA attorney. Upon receipt ofthe written request, the FAA attorney mustfile the original and one copy ofthe complaintwiththe hearing docket clerk "notlaterthan 20 days after receipt." 14 C.P.R. § 13.208(a). Ifthe FAA attorney fails to file a complaint within 20 days after receipt ofa request for hearing, the action maybe dismissed, unless the FAA can show good cause for the delay. In the Matter ofVincent 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 DenyingMotion to Dismiss (January 31, 2013); In re Francis Taylor, Order ofAdministrative LawJudge (August 15, 1994), appeal dismissed, FAA OrderNo. 94-42 (Dec. 16, 1994)(complaint dismissed because good cause not shown by FAA for filing complaint 57 days after receipt ofrequest for hearing). 

### C. General Factual Summary Ori June 4, 2012, the Respondent was arrested by Florida sheriffs for shining a laser pointer at sheriff'shelicopter. (Resp. Dismiss, 1; Exh. C-A.) Afterthis arrest, Special Agent White ("SA White"), an employee with the Department ofTransportation's ("DOT'') Office of 1 Itshould be noted, however, that the court may also raise the timeliness issue suasponte. See, Eric W. Hereth, FAA OrderNo. 94-7, Decision and Order (Mar. 10, 1994). Page 2 of 11the 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, indictedthe 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, 2the 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 onthe criminal offense. (Motion for SJ, Exh. C-F, 1.) While the federal criminal.case was beingprosecuted, the FAA Regional Counsel separately initiated and pursued a civil enforcement action for the laser pointing offense. Specifically, on December 11, 2012,justtwo months after the Respondent was indicted on criminal charges, the FAA servedthe Respondent with the Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty. (Mot. Dismiss, 2; Exh. R-5.) Three (3) weeks later, onJanuary 3, 2013, the FAA served the Respondent withthe Amended Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty ("Amended NPCP"). (Resp. Dismiss, 2; Exh. R-6.) The AmendedNPCP "correct[ed] atypographical error in the amount of the proposedpenalty" from $1,100 to $11,000. (Resp. Dismiss, Exh. R-5.) On April11, 2013, the FAA served the Respondent with the Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty ("FNPCP"). (FAA Supp., 3; Resp. Dismiss, 3; Exh. R-7.) The FNPCP directed the Respondent to "mail or personally deliver" arequest for hearing within "fifteen (15) days." (Exh. R-7, 1.) The FNPCP further directed the Respondent: Your request for hearing mustbe sentto the Federal AviationAdministration, 

### 600 Independence Ave. SW., Wilbur Wright Building, suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC- 430 

### (ifdelivery is in person orvia 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 

### (ifdelivery 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. ChristopherR. Stevenson. There was no

2 Although theprose 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 ofGuilty" that same day, on April17, 2013. (Motion for SJ, Exh. C-E, 1.) Page 3 of 11specific street/city address ormailingprocess listed in the FNPCP instructions (e.g., certified mail, regular mail, fax, email, etc.) for serving a copy oftherequest onMr. 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 writtenRequest for Hearing ("Request") on April 17, 2013-the same day thatthe Respondent pled guilty to the federal offense. (Resp. Dismiss, Exh. R-8.) The Respondent asserted that Mr. Stone servedthe 4/17/13 Request by certified mail on the FAA Hearing Docket, and by regular mail on the FAAregional 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 certifiedmail receipt, confirmed as receivedbythe "FedAviation Admin" on "4/18/13" provedthatthe FAA's Hearing Docket Clerkreceived the certified mailing. (Exh. R-8.) Onpage one ofthe Respondent's 4/17/13 Request, the following "cc" (i.e., carbon copy) was also listed: Christopher R. Stevenson, Esquire Office ofthe Regional Counsel P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 (Req. Hr'g, 

### 1.) Itwas undisputedthatthis was the same regional office letterhead address utilized on page 1ofthe FAA's FNPCP. OnAugust 8, 2013, approximately four (4) months after the Respondent had served his Request, the FAA issued an OrderAssessing Civil Penalty ("OACP"). 3 (FAA Supp, 3; Resp. Dismiss, 6; Exh. R-9). The FAA asserted that ithad issuedthis OACP inthe mistakenbeliefthat the Respondenthadnotrespondedto the April 11, 2013 FNPCP. Itwas undisputed thatthe FAA issuedthe OACPjust seven (7) days after the Respondent appeared in U.S. District Court, and

3 The date ofAugust 8, 2013 appears handwritten (author unknown) at the top ofthe OACP (Exh. R-9), butthe typed sectionofthe document contains no date at all. Nevertheless, the parties agreed that the date ofAugust 8, 2013 was accurate. Page 4 of 11was sentenced on the federal crime. Upon receipt ofthe OACP (date unspecified) Mr. Stone immediately telephoned Mr. Stevenson, the FAA attorney. According to the FAA, Mr. Stone did notmentionthe Request he had filed. Instead, Mr. Stone "complained" about the OACP, in part onthe grounds that the U.S. Attorney had misled Mr. Stone and the Respondentto believethat the Respondent's federal criminal conviction would be fully dispositive ofthe entire incident. (FAA Supp., 3). Inresponse, the FAA stated thatthe criminal conviction was not fully dispositive, and thatthe FAAwould not withdraw its OACP. (!d.) On August 14, 2014,just six (6) days afterthe 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 doublejeopardy.4 As part ofthis Motion to Vacate, Mr. Stone attached a copy oftheRespondent's 4/17/13 Request. (FAA Supp, 3). Twelve (12) days later, on August 26, 2014, SA White emailedto the FAA attorney a copy ofthe Respondent's Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment and Sentence, filed inthe Respondent's criminal case. 5 (FAA Supp., 4.) This email also includedthe 4117/13 Request attached to the Respondent's Motion to Vacate. (!d.) Four (4) days later, after confirming with the FAA Hearing Docketthat 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 notreceive a copy ofthe request for hearing until it was referred by a third party on August 26, 2013, well outside ofthe 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

4The 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 ofdoublejeopardy in this action will be addressed in a separate Order.
5 Itwas 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 coordinatingthe exchange ofdocumentation between the FAA and the U.S. Attorney's Office for use in the criminal proceeding, such as apolice officer's witness statement given by the Florida sheriffs to the FAA aboutthe incident. (FAA Supp, 2 and Exh. K.) Page 5 of 11the result ofa postal error, ratherthan afailure by Respondent to perfecthis request for ahearing by properly serving the FAA. D. Discussion and Analysis The Respondenthas the burden ofproofto show proper service ofhis request for hearing on both the Hearing Docket and the FAA attorney. The Respondent's 4/17114 Request was not accompanied by a certificate ofservice, as described by 14 C.P.R. §13.211(c). In the absence of a certificate ofservice, the date ofservice may be established by proofofa postmark or "other mailing date." 1. Respondent's Request was Timely Filed withthe Hearing Docket Brief History of Hearing Docket Filing Requirement: As originally promulgated in 1988, the FAA's Rules ofPractice only required arespondent to "file a writtenrequest for a hearing withthe 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 arespondent to "file a written request for a hearing with the hearing docket clerk

... and mail a copy ofthe 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 ofpractice regarding the filing and se.rvice ofdocuments in orderto "ensure that documents are regularly sent to the same office or person, who can either respond or forward those documents withinthe organization." (Jd. at 27557). Thus, filing a Request with the Hearing Docket with concurrent service ofthe 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, pursuantto paragraph (t)(3) or paragraph (g)(2) (ii) ofthis section, to be conducted in accordance with the procedures in subpart G ofthis 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) ofthispart, andshallmaila copy of the request to the agency attorney. 14 C.F.R. §13.16(h) (italics added).
Page 6 of 11required. This allowed for the most expeditious communication withthe FAA attorney who was handling the civil enforcement action. Agreed Timely Filing: The FAA agreed the Respondenthad proved that onApril 18, 2013 the FAA Hearing Docket accepted receipt ofthe Respondent's certified mailing ofhis 4/17113 Request. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. §13.211(h) and 14 C.F.R. §13.16(g)(2), the Respondent's proofsubmission is presumptive evidence ofvalid and timely service onthe Hearing Docket. Thus, the Respondent's Requestwas timely filed withthe Hearing Docket. 2. Separate ProofofService onthe FAA Attorney is also Required As noted above, a copy ofthe request for hearing filed with the Hearing Docket must also be sentto 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 Administratorreiterated the need for a respondent to serve a copy ofthe request for hearing onthe FAA attorney specifically involved inthe action, and for the FAAto internally respond to orforward such mail as expeditiously as possible. In the decision ofIn the Matter ofVincent J Medel, FAA OrderNo. 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 Clerkreceivedthe mail, but failed to forward itto the addressee-theFAAregional attorney handlingthe case. InMedel, the FAAAdministrator found that eventhoughthe FAAHearing Docket Clerk was an FAA employee, the Clerk was employed in a separate departmentthanthe FAAregional counsel's office. As a result, the Clerk should not automatically be deemed an "agent" ofthe FAAregional attorney for service attempts. Medel, FAA OrderNo. 93-13, 1993 WL 833107. The Administrator also noted thatbecause ofthe "extensiveness" ofthe FAA, the Respondent had an obligationto serve the FAA attorney at the office in which the FAA attorney worked. !d. at *3. Nevertheless, the Administratorheldthat theMedel respondent's address errorwas understandable, given the lack ofclear address information provided inthe FNPCP for any mailing sentto the regional FAA attorney. 7 !d. As a result, the FAAAdministrator 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 underthe attorney's signature Page 7 of 11the complaint, in partbecausethe Hearing Docket Clerk

- as partofthe FAA administration

- had an affirmative obligationto act promptlyto 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 OrderNo. 93-13. 1993 WL 833107 at *3. 3. Respondent DidNotProve April 17, 2013 Service on FAA Attorney While the Rules ofPractice require service ofthe Request on boththe Hearing Docket and the FAAattorney, attaching proofofservice by certificate ofservice is optional. 14 C.F.R. §13.211(c). As a result, a litigantwho files a Request withthe Hearing Docket and mails a copy to the regional FAA attorney, but who does not utilize a certificate ofservice, must then try to submit proofofservice by "postmark" or "other evidence." 14 C.F.R. §13.211(d); See also, 14 C.F.R. § 13.211(g) and (h). 8 Inthe case herein, thepro se Respondent asserted that his attorney had complied withthe FAA's written directions inthe FNPCP. "Attorney Stone submitted a certified letterrequesting a formal evidentiary hearingto the FAA copying Attorney Stevenson as directed." (Resp. Dism. 3.) Itwas undisputedthat 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.) Theprose Respondent argued that there was "no documentation for regular mail" (Resp. Supp, 1 ), and therefore, the Request alone should be deemed sufficientproofthat a copy

.had been mailed to the FAA attorney at his office address, viaU.S. Mail, at the same time as the certified letterwas 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 itselfis insufficient to establish actual service by mail on the FAA attorney. Additional proofis normally required. For example (not inclusive), in lieu ofa certificate ofservice, the Respondent could have presented a declarative statementfrom either Mr. Stone orhis staff, asserting who inthe line. Despite the passage oftime since the 1993 Medel decision (i.e., 21 years), the same lack ofclarity in address instructions exists in the FNPCP in this case. 8 For example, pursuantto 14 C.F.R. §13.212(g),valid service by mail may also be established ifa "properly addressed" document is "returned" or "not claimed" or "refused." In the instance case, no such evidence was produced. Page 8 of 11office hadprepared and mailed the Requestto the FAA attorney, and when such service by mail had occurred. Inthis case, the Respondent did not present corroborative proofthat any mailingto the FAA attorney had actually occurred on April17, 2013, orthereafter. Unlike the Medel case, there was no address errorregarding the regional attorney's office contained in the Request, and therefore no obligation onthe Hearing Docket Clerkto forward mail to the FAAregional attorney. As a result, the Respondent did notprove service by mail on April17, 2014 or thereafter on the FAA'sregional 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 ofthe complaint with the hearing docket clerk

... not later than 20 days after receipt by the agency attorney ofa requestfor 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 ofthe 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, butthe date the FAA attorney is served withthe Request (or should have received it). Medel, FAAOrderNo. 93-13, 1993 WL 833107 at *3. In the case herein, the Respondent seeks to startthe time clock for the 20-day period on April 17, 2014. However, as shownin the discussion above, the Respoq.dentfailed to provethat the FAA attorney had been served by U.S. Mail on April 17, 2014, or should have received the Request on or nearthat date. Alternatively, the Respondent asserted that SA White, who was an employee ofthe DOT, should be held to be an agent ofservice for the FAA attorney. As noted earlier herein, SA White was actively involved inthe Respondent's criminal proceeding, and attended every criminal court appearance. (Resp Supp, 2.)

9 The 20-day time period is notjurisdictional, but does require the FAA to show good cause for filing a complaint outside the 20-day deadline. Larry's FlyingService, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 98-4, at 8 (Mar. I0, 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 11While the record is clear that Mr. Stone filed the Motion and Request in the criminal case on August 14, 2014, there is no documentation ofwhen SA White actually received a copy. The record only shows that, onAugust 26, 2014 (i.e., twelve days after Mr. Stone filed the Motion and Request), SA White emailed a copy ofthe 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 ifit 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 withthe 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-withina 20-day deadline period from August 14, 2013-there is no timeliness problem even under the hypothetical scenario. 5. Date ofService ofRequest on FAA Attorney

- August 26, 2013 Where the FAA is responsible for delaying the FAA attorney's receipt ofan 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 inthis record does not support a finding thatthe Respondent servedthe FAA attorney withhis Request, orthat the FAA Complaintwas untimely filed. There is no proofthatthe 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 proofsubmitted shows only that the FAA regional attorney received the Request on August 26,2013. The FAA's Complaintwas filed on August 30, 2013, only four days after August 26, 2013, which was well withinthe 20-dayperiodrequiredby 14 C.F.R. § 13.208(a). As a result, the FAA's Complaintwastimely filed, and whether there is good cause for a late-filed complaint need not be addressed. 

### E. CONCLUSION Pursuantto 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 11IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

### 1. The date ofAugust 26, 2013 is established as the date the FAA regional attorney was served with the Respondent's Request for Hearing. 2. The FAA'sAugust 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 doublejeopardy.

Attachment: Service List

Page 11 of 11SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000 10

Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson 

### Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe 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 ParkDrive Jacksonville, FL 32224 TEL: 904-252-1356 FAX: 904-928-0909
Judge J.E. Sullivan 

### US. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 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 orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.