SERVED: APRIL 25,2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

JOHN CROFT 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS FAA-2012-0903 

ORDER GRANTING COMPLAINANT'S MOTION AND 

DISMISSING RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR HEARING 

AND JUDGMENT IN DEFAULT IN FAVOR OF THE AGENCY 

Following the failure of Respondent John Croft ("Respondent" or "Mr. Croft") to file an 

Answer to the Complaint of the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant" or ''the 

agency"), the agency on February 19, 2013 moved for an order deeming the allegations of its 

Complaint admitted and for a decision in its favor on the substantive issues in the case. 

The agency's Rules of Practice state that a person's failure to file an Answer without 

good cause shall be deemed an admission of the truth of each allegation of the Complaint. 14 

C.P.R. §13.209(f). The agency also requested that the hearing be limited to the issue of the 

appropriate civil penalty. 

In response to Complainant's motion, I issued on March 8, 2013 an Order to Show Cause 

("OSC") to Mr. Croft. The OSC directed Mr. Croft to answer it by March 22, and also gave him 

a second opportunity to file an answer to the Complaint by that same date -warning him that if 
2 

By Order dated April2, 2013, I granted Complainant's motion of February 19. 

Respondent was found in violation of each of the sections of the Hazardous Materials 

Regulations ("HMRs") with which he was charged. The hearing was to consider only the issue 

of the appropriate civil penalty (Order Granting Complainant's Motions and Limiting Hearing to 

Penalty, April2, 2013). 

Complainant now has filed a Motion for Decision as to Sanction ("the Motion"). In 

support, it notes that the allegations ofthe Complaint deemed admitted by the Order of April2 

includes the allegation that" ... a civil penalty of$12,000 is appropriate." In this light Mr. 

Croft should be deemed to have admitted the appropriateness of the civil penalty proposed, 

Complainant argues. In support of the remedy it seeks, the agency also has attached an affidavit 

from a proposed witness purporting to establish that the proposed penalty comports with the 

agency's published penalty guidelines. Moreover, the agency notes, Mr. Croft has not provided 

any evidence in his defense supporting the idea that he may be unable to afford, in whole or in 

part, the civil penalty suggested. In conclusion the agency asks for an Order Assessing Civil 

Penalty in the amount demanded in its Complaint of$12,000. 

Respondent has failed to answer the Motion. 

Complainant's Motion will be granted. Complainant is correct that Respondent under the 

Rules of Practice may be deemed to have admitted the appropriateness of the civil penalty 

amount it has proposed. The agency also has shown that the amount suggested is fitting and 

consistent with its guidelines. Moreover, Respondent has been given ample time and several 

opportunities to respond to orders of the Court. Mr. Croft failed to respond to the Complaint, to 

the Order to Show Cause, and to the instant Motion. He already has been warned of the risks of 

a failure to comply. Yet Mr. Croft has ignored all pleas. He has failed utterlyin his pre-trial 

responsibilities to Complainant and to this Court. In these circumstances, I find and conclude 

that grant of Complainant's Motion is proper. Put another way, Respondent by his silence in the 

face of several opportunities to address the issues has constructively abandoned his opposition to 

the Complaint. 

WHEREFORE, Complainant's Motion for Decision as to Sanction, dated April4, 2013, 

having been read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Complainant's Motion for Decision as to Sanction is GRANTED; 

2. Respondent's Request for Hearing be and is hereby DISMISSED with 

prejudice; 

3. The hearing scheduled to be heard beginning May 1, 2013, pursuant to 

Hearing Notice dated January 16,2013, is hereby CANCELLED; and 

4. Judgment be and is hereby ENTERED for Complainant as to civil penalty in 
3 

4. Judgment be and is hereby ENTERED for Complainant as to civil penalty in the 

amount of$12,000.00 against Respondent, as requested in Complainant's 

Complaint. 

Attachment - Service List 
4 

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 2W1 0001 

John Croft, Respondent 

134 Lincoln Street 

Sitka, AK 99835 

TEL: 907-738-1256 

ONE COPY 

Howard L. Martin, Jr., Complainant's Counsel 

Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel,. AAL-7 

Alaskan Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

222 West ih A venue , Box 14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

TEL: 907- 271-5273 

FAX: 907- 271-2800 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Staff Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0903 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 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-Suit~ 2W I 000, Washington, 

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