### In The Matter Of: 

### SERVED: May 18, 2016 

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

DocketNo. FAA-2015-1319 WILLIAM A. CURTRIGHT ) ) ) ) ) 

### CaseNo. 2014NM090046 Respondent ORDERFINDING GOOD CAUSE FORTHE RESPONDENT'S UNTIMELYANSWER, DENYING THE FAA'S RENEWED MOTION, AND GRANTING/DENYING OTHER RELIEF


### On May 27,2015, the FAA'sComplaint (dated May 19, 2015) was filed with the Office ofHearings. Approximatelytwelve (12) days later, onJuly 8, 2015, Judge Goodwin issued a Procedural Order in whichthe parties were directedto complete discovery by December4, 2015, and be ready to presentthe case for hearing on or afterthat date. (July 8, 2015 Order, 2 ,-r,-r 2-3.) OnAugust 5, 2015, the FAA filed the Complainant's Motionto Deem Allegations Admitted and to Dismiss Appeal ("Motion"). That same day, on August 5, 2015, the

### proseRespondent, Mr. William A. Curtright, filed a Response to the Complaint ("Answer"). Included in this Answer was an untitled Motion to deem the case resolved, and to dismiss the proposed civil penalty of$11,000. ("August 5, 2015 Motion") 1

1The Respondent did not file a Certificate ofService with his Answer and untitled Motion to Dismiss. The Answer included an assertion that it had been sentto the FAA attorney ("cc by email"), butthere was no confirmation, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.211, thatthe Answerhad also been filed with the FAA Hearing Docket. (Ans. 2.) . : ·,,,.

### Six (6) days later, on August 11, 2015, the

### prose Respondent filed a Reply to Complainant's Motionto Deem Allegations Admitted and to Dismiss Appeal ("Response").2 

### On September4, 2015, Judge Goodwintransferred to a different agency. Atthe time of this transfer, no hearing date had been set, and the motions previously filed remained pending. On October 8, 2015, an OrderReassigning Proceeding was filed, which reassigned the case to the undersigned. On October 15, 2015, the FAA filed Complainant's Renewed Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted and to Dismiss Appeal ("RenewedMotion").3 

### On October 21, 2015, an Order Setting Deadlines for the FAAto SupplementIts Motion, for the Respondentto Respond and Show Cause, and Granting/Reserving OtherReliefwas filed. Pursuantto the October 21, 2015 Order, on October 29, 2015, the FAA filed the Complainant's Supplemental Pleading to its Renewed Motion ("Supplemental Pleading"). OnNovember 17, 2015, the Respondent filed its Reply [sic] to Order Setting Deadlines for the FAA to Supplement Its Motion, for the Respondent to Respond and Show Cause, and Granting/Reserving Other Relief("Show Cause Statement").4 

### On November 19, 2015, an Order SettingDeadlines for the FAA to File a Response, the Respondentto File a Reply, and Reserving OtherReliefwas filed.

2A "reply" is a final argument filed by a moving party, after the opposingparty has filed a response to any motion made by the moving party. Theprose Respondent's August 11, 2015 material, although titled as a "Reply," is actually a Response to the FAA's August 5, 2015 Motion. It should also be noted thatthe record does not reflect that theprose Respondent filed his Response with the FAA Hearing Docket, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.211. See, Resp., Cert. ofService. 3This October 15, 2015 Renewed Motion superceded the August 5, 2015 Motion. The FAA's October 15, 2015 Renewed Motion was filed pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.218(f)(5), which allows a party to file a Motion for Decision based on the record. However, the October 15, 2015 Renewed Motion was identical to the original August 5, 2015 Motion, exceptfor the signature dates and updated dates ofpleading. Thus, the FAA's October 15, 2015 Renewed Motion supersedes it's earlier filed August 5, 2015 Motion.
4 As noted in Fn. 2, supra, a "reply" is a final argument filed by the moving party after the opposing litigant has filed a response. In contrast, the Court is not a litigant or party to the action. Ifthe Court issues a ruling and invites or directs a litigant to supplementthe record, such supplemental material is titled as directed by the Court Order (e.g., "Show Cause Statement") Page 2 of 11

### On December4, 2015, the FAA filed the Complainant's Response to the ALJ's Order of November 19, 2015 ("Responseto Show Cause"). 5 

### That same day, the FAAfiled a signed Complaint. OnJanuary 6, 2016, the Respondentfiled its Reply to Complainant's Response to the AU's Order.ofNovember 19,2015 ("Reply"). On January 19, 2016, the Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss ("Second Motion to Dismiss"). A. Issues This Order addresses only the FAA's Renewed Motion to Dismiss.6 

### The issues are whetherthepro se 

### Respondent'sAugust 5, 2015 Answer was timely and, ifnot, whether good cause exists for that untimeliness. B. 

### FAA Rules ofPractice - Timely Answer or Good Cause ShowingRequired The FAA's Rules ofPractice require a respondent to file atimely answer after service of the FAA'scomplaint. 14 C.F.R. § 13.209. At the most, a responding party has 35 days to file a timely answer after service ofa Complaint.7

### Ifan answer is filed beyond the 3 5 day period, the responding party who has filed a late answer to a Complaint may petition for relieffrom a default action. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 

### 13.209(£), in support ofits request for relieffrom a default action, the responding party must demonstrate good cause. "A showing ofgood cause is mandatory. Without it failure to file an answerby the deadline may notbe excused."' 

### Global

5 The FAA was invited by the Courtto file a Response to the arguments made by the Respondent in his Show Cause Statement (Nov. 19,2015 Order, 2**~** 1.) As already discussed above (See Fns. 2 and 4, supra), the Court is not a party to the action. The directives in a Court Order are not party arguments. Thus, a litigant does not file "responses" or "replies" to a Court Order. 6 The Respondent's January 19, 20I6 Motion to Dismiss, as well as those portions ofhis August 5, 20I5 Motion and January 6, 2016 Reply that also move for dismissal on similargrounds, will be addressedby a separate order. 7 Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § l3.209(a), a respondent is allowed 30 days after service ofthe complaintto file a written answerto the complaint Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.2I I(e), five additional days are added to the 30 day time period whenever a complaint is served by mail. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.212(b), the date ofservice is not included in the calculation oftime. Page 3 of 11

### Peace Initiative, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 2008-8 at 6 (Aug. 21, 2008) (quoting

### Atlantic World Airways, FAA OrderNo. 1995-28 at 4 (Dec. 19, 1995). Good cause is a "nebulous" standard. 

### See, 21A Fed. Proc. L. Ed.§ 51:64 (2014). 

### Itis an evaluation that rests within the discretion ofthe trial court, since there is a preference for deciding cases on theirmerits. 1 OA Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 

### Fed. Prac. & 

### Proc. Civ. § 2693 (3d ed. 2014); 

### See, e.g., In re DavidLloydCornwall, FAA OrderNo. 92-47 at 7 (July 22, 1992) (Wherever possible, cases should be heard "on the merits"). In evaluating good cause, there is "no fixed, rigid standard" that can anticipate "all the situations" which might arise for a party's failure to file a timely answer. 21A Karl Oakes, 

### Fed. Proc. 

### L. Ed. §51 :64 (2014). Therefore, in determining whether good cause exists ordoes not exist, the court may considerthe nature ofthe default, whether there is a meritorious defense, whetherthe opposing party will be prejudiced, the timeliness ofthe request for relief, the amount involved in the litigation, as well as the availability and effectiveness ofless drastic solutions. 29 A.L.R. Fed. 7, 

### Good Cause General Considerations, §4 (1976). Other considerations in evaluating goodcause (not inclusive) may include the inaction ofa party's counsel, a party's mistaken**~elief**about the time requirements, the willfulness ofthe party's non-compliance, any factors demonstrating excusable neglect, surprise, orinadvertence, or a party's erroneous reliance on settlement negotiations. 29 A.L.R. Fed. 7, 

### Sufficiency of ParticularReasonsfor Inaction,§§ A and B (1976), 

### See also, Edes v. Fredson, 344 F. Supp. 2d 209 (D. Me. 2004). C. 

### Summary ofParties' Arguments 1. FAA's Renewed Motion and Supplemental Pleading In its October 15,2015 Renewed Motion and its October29,2015 Supplemental Pleading, the FAA asserts that it served the Respondent with its ComplaintonMay 19, 2015 by certified mail, to Mr. Curtright'spost office box address: P.O. Box 1350, Jefferson, OR 97352. (Supp. Plg, Att. 1.) The Complaint was signed for by a DanaCurtright on May 22, 2015. (!d.) The FAA argues thatthe Respondent's May 11, 2015 Request for Hearing ("Request") should be dismissed, on the grounds that the Respondent was served on May 19,2015, and failed to file a timely answerto the Complaint. According to the FAA'stime calculations, the Respondent's answer was due onorbefore June 23, 2015. (Supp. Pig., 1.) The FAA also asserts Page 4 of 11that it gave the Respondent "specific" notice ofthe requirement to file an answer within thirty (30) days. 2. Respondent's Show Cause Statement The record showsthatthe

### pro se Respondent, Mr. Curtright, filed an Answer on August ·5, 2015, the same day the FAA filed its Renewed Motion. In hisNovember 17, 2015 Show Cause Statement, Mr. Curtright did not dispute that he had been served a copy ofthe Complaint by certified mail on May 19, 2015. He did not address the FAA's assertion that a timely Answer to such Complaint, ifvalid, should have been a filed on orbefore June 23, 2015. (Show Cause Stmt. 1- 2.); 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(a). Mr. Curtright explained, however, that the May 19,2015 Complaint had notbeen signed by the FAA attorney. Hethought a signature on legal documents was required; otherwise, the document was not "formal" and did notrequire a response. (!d. at 1.) Mr. Curtright also noted he was not an attorney. He had "inadvertently missed" the FAA's warning language attached to the Complaint, in partbecause it was a separate page following the end ofthe Complaint. 

### (!d) 3. FAA's Response to ShowCause As outlined earlier herein, upon receipt ofthe Respondent's materials, a November 19, 2015 Order was filed. ThisNovember 19, 2015 Order allowed both the FAA to respond to the 

### prose Respondent's ShowCause argumentregardingthe unsigned Complaint, and the Respondent to file a Reply. (November 19,2015 Order, 2

**~** 1.) In its December4, 2015 Response to Show Cause, the FAA presented several arguments. First, the unsigned Complaintwas not a fatal errorthatinvalidated the Complaint. Instead, it was a "minorprocedural defect" that did notexcusethe Respondent's failure to file an Answer. (FAA Resp. to Show Cause at 1.) Second, the FAA counsel's signature onthe cover letter to the Complaint,8 as well as the FAA clerical employee's signature onthe Certificate of Service, left "no questionbutthatthe FAA intendedto file a Complaint in this matter." (FAA Resp., 2.) Third, the FAA argued thatthe FAA Administratorhas consistently rejected "the notion 

### thatpro se respondents should not be held to a standard ofcompliance." 

### (!d. (citing

8 A copy ofthe FAA's May 19, 20 16 Cover Letter is attachedas an unmarked exhibit to the FAA's December4, 20 15 Response. Page 5 of 11

### Barbera, FAA OrderNo. 2015-4 (Sept. 9, 2015))). Thus, the Respondent's assertion that he did not understand the requirement to comply with 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.209 by filing an answer to the Complaint should not be accepted as good cause. (FAA Resp. 2.) 4. Respondent's Reply In his January 6, 2016 Reply, Mr. Curtright also presented several arguments. First, the FAA should not have it both ways: on one hand arguing that the Respondent's Request should be dismissed for failure to comply with the procedural requirements, while on the otherhand, arguing that the FAA'sfailure to meetprocedural requirements by serving and filing an unsigned Complaint shouldbe deemed to have no effect on the proceeding. (Reply 2.) Second, the FAA's cited authority in support ofits contention that a missing signature was a minor procedural defect was inapposite, because the Complaint was not a Judicial Order as discussed by the cited authority. (!d. at 2.) Lastly, Mr. Curtright argued that the timeliness rule appeared to be a "secret standard ofcompliance" favoringthe FAA, who is a partyto the litigation. (!d.) He objected to being heldto such a rule, on the grounds ofunfairness. 

### (!d.) 

### D. Discussion All pleading and arguments submittedbybothparties were fully considered. However, only certain matters will be highlighted in this discussion. 1. Signature on Pleading Required In support ofits Renewed Motion, the FAA argues, in part, that the Respondent should have known the Complaintwas official, because the accompanying CoverLetter was signed by counsel, and the Certificate ofService was signed by an FAA employee. (FAA Resp., 2.) This is not persuasive. Section 13.207(a)requires aparty or attorney representative to sign each documents/he files or serves. This signature acts as a certificationthat the document's contents are warranted by law and are consistentwiththe FAA'sRules ofPractice. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.207(b). Ifdocuments are signed in violation ofthe Rules ofPractice, sanctions may be imposed. 14 C.F.R. § 13.207(c). Thus, the fact that counsel's signature was affixed to a Cover Letter addressed to the Hearing Docket Clerk may not qualify as a "substitute" for the required party or attorney representative certification ofthe pleadings. Page 6 of 112. TheValidity ofUnsigned Complaint Although Section 13.207 does not specifically address the effect offailing to sign a document, Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 11(a) provides instructional guidance. Rule 11(a) states, in part: "The courtmust strike an unsigned paperunless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's orparty's attention." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). In the instant case, the FAAwas unaware ofits non-compliance with 14 C.F.R § 13.207(a) until November 17,2015,whenthe

### prose Respondent filed his Show Cause Statement and brought the omittecrslgnature onthe Complaintto the FAA's attention. (Show Cause Stmt. 1.) Seventeen (17) <;lays later, on December4, 2015, the FAA's Response to Show ' \. :**~.** . . Cause was filed, which includeq**\\.~igned** version ofthe May 19, 2015 Complaint. (FAA Resp. 1,**~** : / i : \ Attach.) This was a prompt**acti9Nl:~ince** it occurred priorto the December 15, 2015 deadline set by the Court for the FAA to**fil~** a**~esponse.** (Nov. 19, 2015 Order 2.) ' ' Federal courts have heldJh(l-t ifan unsigned document is "promptlycorrected"pursuant to Rule ll(a), thenthe unsigned <;iQcpment is considered to be "filed" onthe date it was filed l'l. with the clerk. 

### See Becker v. Mqntgomery, 532 U.S. 757 (2001); 

### IRS v. Koff, No. S-00-CV-1954, ·::.:'!. ',. 2002 WL 1004744, at *6**(E.D~** G,al. Mar. 18, 2002) (action is "commenced" by filing unsigned

. ', :\. ·. complaint). In this case, sincetheFAApromptly corrected the omission onDecember4, 2015, : ''.1 its Complaint is consideredto

## b~'validly filed withthe FAA Hearing Docketand served onthe ·. ,,· Respondent on May 19, 2015, eventhough it was unsigned atthe time offiling and service. 3. Respondent's August 5, 2015 Answer- Untimely Because the FAA's Complaint is deemed to have been validly filed and served on May 19, 2015, the due date for a tim.ely answerto the Complaint was June 23, 2015. As a result, the Respondent's Answer, filed on August 5, 2015, was untimely. 4. Respondent Has Demonstrated Good Cause The FAA Administratorhas held that good cause may be found when an FAA attorney, albeit inadvertently, misleads a respondent regarding the requirement to file an answer. 

### See 

### Sutton, FAA OrderNo. 1994-20, at 4 (Sept. 30, 1994) ("Ifcommunications between Respondent and the agency attorney ... led Respondent reasonably, but incorrectly, to believe that Page 7 of 11

### submitting [an answerwas unnecessary], then inthe interest offairness, good cause may be found ...."). In the instant case, the benefit ofthe doubt should be given to the

### prose Respondent, in considering whetherthe lack ofa signed Complaint "reasonably" misled the Respondent to believe thatthe Complaintwas an informal document requiring no answer. The Respondent filed his Answer onAugust 5, 2015, four (4) months priorto the FAA filing a signed copy ofthe Complaint on December4, 2015 (i.e., seventeen (17) days after the

### prose Respondentfiled his November 17,2015 Show Cause Statement identifyingthe signature omission). ;,. ,' ' 

### The "interestoffairness" emphasizedby the FAAAdministrator in

### Sutton would not be served by a ruling that the FAA'smistaken failure to comply with the Rules ofPractice can be

**~** i i 

### cured by promptly correcting the

**f~ilure,** 

### while the Respondent's failure to comply with the Rules, which was caused at least inpartby the FAA's failure to comply, must result in the Respondent losinghis opportun.i\Y. for ahearing and a decision on the merits. 5. "Specific" Warning Language The FAA argued that it hadprovided "specific" warning to the Respondent about the need to file atimely answer. This·should be briefly addressed, since it is often a source of dispute between the parties in civil penalty enforcement adjudications. As noted by the Respondent herein, the FAA'sWf!.Ining language 9 

### appeared onapage separate from the Complaint. 10 

### TheRespondent overlookeditbecause he did notunderstand whatthe attachment was and why it mightbe so important. This appears to be fairly commonresponse by

### prose claimants. In addition, this Court would note that the "warning" paragraph in this particular case is entitled as "ANSWER", but ifone reads the paragraph, it is not an Answer at all. Instead, it is a statementthat an answerhas notyetbeen filed, and a warning that a time-sensitive action (i.e., the "clock" is ticking) needs to be taken on the matter. While this Court understands that the

9 The language contained on the attached document stated: "ANSWER In accordance with Section 13.209 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations, William A. Curtright, must answerthis Complaint not later than thirty (30) days from the time it is served. Failure to file an Answer within thirty (30) days without good cause shall be deemed an admission ofthetruth ofeach allegation contained in the Complaint [14. [sic] C.F.R. § 13.209(f)]." (Comp. Att.)
10NB: The placement ofthe FAA's warning language varies, depending on which regional office is prosecutingthe action. For example, other FAA Complaints have included the warning in the Complaint itself, immediately above orbelow the FAA attorney's signature line. Page 8 of 11

## . FAA has utilized "Answer" as the warning heading for many years, it appears to be misleading. A more accurate warning heading, withplacement ofthe warning language above counsel's signature in the pleadings, mightprove more effective. 6. The FAA's Public Rulemaking and Rules ofPractice The Respondent's arguments that the rules governing this proceeding are a "secret standard ofcompliance" and that "[t]he FAA does not getto decide the rules when the FAA is one party in a dispute" (Reply to Order 2) also needs to be briefly addressed. 'IL.' \\
. 

### There is no doubtthat**r~~pot;Iding** 

### to any legal proceeding takes hard work, attention and
,1 11 if.-..• 1, 

### time, even for experienced lawyers. When one is not a lawyer, unused to legal terms, procedures,

.. ,:·. P''l·· 

### and research, it cantake even more effort and hard work. Butjustbecause something is difficult or new, particularly within a speci:afty field such law and aviation safety, does not mean that the standards orrules within such a specialty field are wrong, secret, or unfair.

. li\. i':,. 

### First, the FAA was suppbsdd to create the rules for FAA civil penalty proceedings. Congress specifically delegated

## :Suth authority to the FAA Administrator. 

### See 49 U.S.C. § 46301(d)(2), (7)(A) (2014).**As\·P;~ ofthat**  

### delegated authority, the FAA Administrator spent considerable time arid attentiorftb promulgate procedural rules governing FAA civil penalty
·. \ 't' {''·,
. 

### proceedings that would be fair

# i6 everyone. II 

### The FAA Administrator's discussion about the 'l•:f'' 

### creation ofthe rules, as well as hjs,responses to members ofthe public who commented on what ;';:'·:':·;: 

### should be included (or omitted) is not a secret. Rather, it has been published and availableto the '."\•, . 

### public for twenty-six (26) years'.55 Fed. Reg. 27548 (Jul. 3, 1990) (Discussion ofFinal Rule). The Respondent's assertions of"secrecy" are simply incorrect, and likely result from the :·, 

### Respondent's unfamiliarity with_this area ofthe law. In fact, the FAA's Rules ofPractice are i• :·. 

### available to any member ofthe pJbilc. They are published in both the Federal Register and in

.... I'·

11 To help ensure fairness, the FAA Adn1inistrator is prohibited from being a party litigant to these proceedings. 14 C.F.R. § 13.203. Duringthe litigation, the FAA Regional Counsel, through the designated agency attorney, is the complainant in this proceeding and is prohibited from "participat[ing] or giv[ing] advice in a decision by the administrative lawjudge orby the FAA [Administrator] on appeal, except as counsel or a witness in the public proceeding." 14 C.F.R. § 13.203(b); see also, 5 U.S.C. § 554(d)(2). The FAA Administrator only becomes involved ifeitherparty appeals the decision**ofth~** undersigned Judge. 14 C.F.R. § 13.233. Page 9 of 11

### the Code ofFederal Regulations (see 14 C.F.R. Part 13, Subpart G). 12 

### Additionally, the decisions and orders ofthe FAA Administrator applyingthe Rules ofPractice are also available to the public. 13 E. Conclusion 

### Based on the foregoing, and having reviewed all pleadings and documents, as well as all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulation, statutory authority, and being fully advised;

, i L'.

**~** ·..;.\..·(,: 

### IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

...

\ .l\. i:' l. 

### The FAA's August 5, 2015 Motion was superseded by the FAA's October 15,2015 Renewed Motion. The August 5, 2015 Motion is deemed moot. 2. The FAA's Complaint, signed and filed on December4, 2015, is deemed valid as May 19,2015. 3. The

### prose Respondent's August 5, 2015 Answer was untimely.

. ,' 1. ,;• 

### 4. The Respondenthas showri good cause for its untimely August 5, 2015 Answer. ' ' ·,u 

### 5. The Respondent's untim.'e1y August 5, 2015 Answer is accepted. :.•! 

### 6. The FAA's October 15, 2015 Renewed Motion is denied. 7. A separate orderwill issueon the Respondent's January 19,2016Motionto Dismiss.

·.·,·.

12 There are multiple public and commercial resources available to find and use these sources. For example, the U.S. Government Publishing Office's Federal Digital System is available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR20IS-title 14-voll/pdf/CFR-20IS-title 14-voll-part13-subpartG.pdf. The Federal Aviation Administration's website is available at http://www.faa.gov/aboutloffice erg/headquarters offices/age/pol adjudication/agc400/civil penalty/Rules/mediald sp RulesofPrac.pdf. 13 Federal Aviation Administration website, available at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_ orglheadquarters _offices/agc/poI_adjudication/agc400/civi!_penaltyI Page 10 of 118. Ifeither party needs clarification orhas any questions regarding the procedures contained in this Order, contact Mr. Cody

### L. Smith, Attorney-Advisor at the Office ofHearings (202-366-6941).

Attachment: Service List
l!. t ( \'

1'1,

Page 11 of 11

### DocketNo. FAA-2015-1319 (Civil Penalty Action) 

### SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2Wl000 1



### Mr. David F. Shayne Complainant's Counsel

**·~** i!' · 

### Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 98057 TEL: 425-227-1847 FAX: 425-227-1007 ,, 

### Dr. William Ames Curtright,

**D~.~** 

### " . Respondent '· · P.O. Box 1350 Jefferson, OR 97352 Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 

### '

**.~**'

·.. :,•



### U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 ONE COPY

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-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.