jri-ARTIvicNi OF 

•^I^ANSPCHTATiON 

;:OCKErOPERAT!ON3 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION^:. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS [ ^ t ' 

WASHINGTON, D.C. ' ^ ^ 

/Oil AUG - 8 P h 3"! 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Complainant, 

V. 

DRYTAC CORPORATION 

AUG " 2 2011 

h^EARING DOCKE 

FAA Docket No. [To be Assigned] 

Judge Jeslyn E. Sullivan 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0480 

Respondent. 

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

COMES NOW your Respondent Drytac Corporation ("Drytac" or "Respondent) by 

Counsel and pursuant to 14 CFR § 13.218 and states as follows as its Response to the Order to 

Show Cause entered by this Office as of July 25, 2011: 

Response to Specific Findings of Order to Show Cause 

1. Respondent admits that on or about April 19, 2011 it received a Final Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty from the complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA" or 

"Complainant"). 

2. Respondent admits that on or about May 5, 2011 the Respondent served a written 

request for hearing on the Complainant. 

3. Respondent admits that on or about May 13, 2011 the Complainant filed its 

Complaint, and that Complainant duly served a copy of such Complaint on the Respondent. 
4. Respondent admits that on or about June 10, 2011 it received Notice of 

Assignment of Proceedings and an Order of the Chief Administrative Law Judge Establishing 

Procedures. 

5. Respondent admits that on or about July 14, 2011 it received an Order 

Reassigning Proceedings. 

6. Respondent admits that on or about July 18, 2011 the Complainant filed its 

Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted and Motion for Hearing on Sanction Only (the "Motion to 

Deem Admitted"), and that Complainant duly served a copy of such Motion to Deem Admitted 

on the Respondent. 

Additional Relevant Facts 

7. Since receiving initial notification from United Parcel Service ("UPS" or 

"Carrier") of the shipping irregularity in April of 2010, Respondent has been in regular and 

repeated contact with personnel of the FAA regarding the alleged violations and possible civil 

sanctions. 

8. From April of 2010 through the present. Respondent (including persona! 

communication by the Respondent's president and the Respondent's vice president of finance) 

has conducted both formal and informal settlement discussions with the Complainant and has 

provided Complainant with significant information regarding the incident in question, the 

Respondent's present and past financial condition and the Respondent's mediation and training 

efforts to insure no re-occurrence violation. 

9. As late as May 5, 201 K the Complainant agreed to reconsider its then-current 

proposal of sanctions, and agreed to consider further settlement negotiations pending a further 

review of the relevant documents and information. 
10. At all such times, Respondent was not represented by counsel and proceeded pro 

se in such matters. 

11. Despite due notice, the Respondent believed that its ongoing negotiations with the 

Complainant, and Complainant's agreement to take a further look at the file, in effect, relieved 

Respondent of the need to file formal response to the Complaint. 

12. Upon receiving the Complainant's Motion to Deem Admitted, Respondent 

immediately realized its error in failing to file formal response to the Complaint, and promptly 

sought to retain legal counsel. 

13. On July 18, 2011 Respondent met with and retained present legal counsel. 

14. On July 18, 2011 Respondent's legal counsel called and spoke with legal counsel 

for the Complainant regarding the matter. 

15. On July 26, 2011 Respondent's legal counsel once again called legal counsel for 

the Complainant, and left a voicemail message regarding the matter. 

16. On July 27, 2011 Respondent received service of the present Order to Show 

Cause and provided a copy of the same to its legal counsel. 

17. Respondent has filed and served an Answer to the Complaint simuUaneously with 

this Response, and both are filed prior to the deadline of August 3, 2011 as set forth in the Order 

to Show Cause. 

NOW WHEREFORE, in light of the circumstances set forth above; in light of the fact 

that Respondent has retained counsel and has filed and served an Answer to the Complaint; and 

in light of the fact that Respondent continues to seek to negotiate an appropriate settlement with 

the Complainant (which efforts may well be impaired by an enlr>' of an Order deeming all 

matters admitted), your Respondent respectfully requests that this Ofilce deny the Complainant's 
Motion to Deem Admitted, and that this Office instead accept Respondent's Answer as if timely 

filed in accordance with 14 CFR § 13.209. 

DRYTAC CORPORATION 

By:. 

Meredith W^^y^Y ^ ><Sd€r, , Counsel 

Meredith L. Yoder, Esq. (Virginia State Bar # 48951) 

PARKER, POLLARD, WILTON & PEADEN, P.C. 

6802 Paragon Place, Suite 300 

Richmond, Virginia 23230-1655 

(804) 262-3600 - telephone 

(804) 262-3284 - facsimile 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Response to Order to 

Show Cause was mailed U.S. Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the following parties 

as of this 28"' day of July, 2011: 

Hearing Docket Clerk (Original and 1 Copy) 

FAA, AGC-430, Suite 2W1000 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Hon. Jeslyn E. Sullivan (1 Copy) 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Gerald A. Ellis, Esq. (1 Copy) 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

Meredith±^odeF;^Counsel