05/0g/2013 12:45 7812387055 FAA NE REGIONAL CNSL PAGE 01/07

To:- Hearing Docket Fax No.: 202-493-5142 From: 

### R Bennett Sargent

Title: Attorney Date: May 9, 2013 Pages 1 of? w/cover:
Scott Tice; Docket No. FAA-2013-0042, RE: Case No. 2012NE700211 

# Federal Aviation Administration
Office ofthe Chief Counsel New England Region 12 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803-5299 T 781-238-7058 F 781-238-7055

Facsimile05/09/2013 12:45

u.s. Department of Tronsportotlon Fodera! Aviation Administration
May 9, 20l3 7812387055

New England Region Office ofthe Regional Counsel FAA NE REGIONAL CNSL PAGE 02/07

12 Nsw England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803"5299 Telephone: (781) 238-7058 FAX: (781) 238-7055

FACSIMILE (202) 366-7536 & U.S. FIRST CLASS MAIL
The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, ALJ Offi.ce ofHearings U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 

### S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 

### IntheMatterofScott Tice DocketNo. FAA-2013-0042 Case No. 20l2NE700211 DearJudge Sullivan: Pursuantto your Order dated March 

### IJ, 2013, enclosed please find 

### the parties' Proposed Scheduling I Discovery Plan in the above-referenced matter, Please also find Complainant's Renewed Motion for Order Deeming Allegations Admitted and to Limit Hearing to Issue of Civil. Penalty. Sincerely,

R.BENNETTSARGENT Attorney Enclosures
cc: Hearing Docket Mr. ScottTice05/09/2013 12:45 7812387055 FAA NE REGIONAL CNSL

In the matter of: SCOTTTICE. Respondent U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
FAA Case No. 2012NE7002I 1 FAA Docket No.**FAA<'-013~0042** Date: May 9, 20l3 Judge J.E. Sullivan PROPOSED SCHEDliL!NQ,>DfSCOVERY**p~** PAGE 03/07

Pursuant to the Order ofthe Administrative LawJudge (AU) served on Murch 11. 2013. d1e partieshereby submittheir proposed scheduling/discovery plan, The following represents the plan as discussed by the parties via telephone on May 2, 2013: I. Procedural Schedule : a. Completion ofDiscovery- On or betore July 19,2013. b. A [I Prehearing Motions- Served on orbefore August 9, 2012. c. Filing ofStipulations, Ex.change of**Exhibit~,** Witness Lists. and Sur:nmnries of Proposed Testimony- No later than Augu.st JO, 2012. or 20 dacl'·s afl"'' a l'llling on 

### all dispositive prehearing motions, whichever is later. 2. Settlement The parties have made and discussed settlement proposals,but have been unable to agree up to this point. 3. Hearing Site; The FAA requests that the hcariil£ in this mntter be held in Boston. MA, as the siteofthe violations alleged, as well as all relevant evidence and witncsse.s in this matter, are located within the New England region. The FAA. expects thatthe hearing will last one day. Respondent has requested that the**l1e~ring** be held in Minneapolis, within pr(lXimity to his residence in WlscOilsin, orby telephone. Respectfully submitted tills 9tll day ofMay, 2013.

# R.~~ Attorney Fedet·aJ Aviation Adrninistratio.n 

# ___**S:t-iit::_]~**

# ..- Scott Tice Respondent05/0g/2013 12:45 7812387055 FAA NE REGIONAL CNSL

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION


### In the Matter of FAA Case No. 20l2NE70021l SCOTTTICE, FAA Docket No. FAA-2013-0042 Respondent. Date: May 9, 2013 Judge J.E. Sullivan PAGE 04/07**~OMPLAINANT'S** RENEWED MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED AND TO LIMIT HEARING TO ISSUE OF CIVIL PENALTY
The Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), pursllil11t to the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil PenaltyActions under 14 CFRPart 13, Subpart G (the "Rules"), renews its Motion for the Administrative LawJudge (ALJ) to issue an Orderdeeming the allegations in the complaint admitted, for a decision in favor ofthe Complainant onthe issue ofliability, and to 

### limit any hearinginthe above-captioned matterto the issue ofcivil penalty amount. In support thereof, the Complainant states as follows:
1. On May l,2013, the ALl issued an. Order accepting Respondent's late-filed Answer and finding good cause therefore, consequently denying the FAA'spriorMotionfor Order Deeming Allegations Admitted and To Limit Hearing to Issue ofCivil Penalty on the basis of default. However, said Order also specifically provides that the FAAmay renew ormodify its Motion for Order DeemingAllegations Admitted after an. examination of the proseRespondent's Answer and after discussion with the pro se Respondent during the Rule 26(f) planning meeting.
2. An examination ofRespondent's Answerreveals that Respondent has admitted to all facts as alleged, as well as all regulatory violations cited, inparagraphs 1-14 (Section IT) ofthe Complaint. There is thus no genuine dispute as to any facts which establishthat05/09/2013 12:45 7812387055 FAA NE REGIONAL CN5L PAGE 05/07

Respondent violated 49 CFR sections 171.2(e), 172.200(a), 172.204(a), 172.204( c)(1), 172.204(c)(2), 172.300(a), 172.30l(a), 172.304(a)(l), 172.400(a), 172.600(c)(l), 173.l(b) and 173.27(b)(l) as alleged.
3. The only remaining issue in dispute in this matter is that ofthe civil penalty proposed by the Complainant. Respondent's Answer did not specifically address paragraphs 15-16 (Section In) ofthe Complaint, which deals with the FAA'sregulatory authority for issuing a civil penalty in this matter, as well as the reasonableness ofthe civil penalty proposed. Respondent's only dispute, based upon other information contained in his Answer, as well as from Complainant's understanding ofdiscussions with Respondent, appearsto be that the proposed civil penalty isunwarranted based upon his own opinions about the safety risk associated withinadvertently offering a "'nearly empty" fuel canister for transportation aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft. Again, there is no genuine disputethatRespondent violated the regulations alleged. Any issues that Respondent has raised deal only with the appropriateness ofthe civil penaltyproposed by Complainant.
4. Moreover, Respondent himselfstated in his Answerthat, "Unless the FAA's reqtJest for an Order Deeming Allegations Admitted and To Limit Headngto Issue ofCivil Penalty wouldprevent m.e from entering evidence that the statement I have made in my answer to the allegations are true, then I have no objection to such and order." Respondent already admitted that factual allegations in the Complaint are true, such that any other evidence introduced would berelevant only to the appropriateness ofthe civilpenalty proposed.
5. The requested Order would serve to significantly limit the scope ofa hearing, as well as any discovery and/or evidentiary issues associated therewith, and would conserve resources that would be expended ill further litigation ofissues not reasonably indispute.05/09/2013 12:45 7812387055 FAA NE REGIONAL CNSL PAGE 05/07

WBEREFORE, Complainantrespectfully moves the ALJ for an Order deeming the allegations in the complaint admitted, for a decision 

### in favor ofthe Complainant onthe issue of liability, and to limit any hearing in the above-captioned matter to the issue ofcivil penalty amount. Respectf\ll!y submittedthis 91 h 

### day ofMay, 2013.

# .~ Attorney Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

### 12 England Executive 

### Park Burlington, 

### MA 01803 Tel: 

### 781-238-7058 Fax: 

### 78h238-705505/09/2013 12:45 7812387055 FAA NE REGIONAL CNSL PAGE 07/07



### CERTIFICATE OF 

### SERVJCE I certify that the foregoing has been mailed this date by email and Certified Mail, Retum Receipt Requested, to: Respondent 

### Mr. Scott Tice 2 I 125 Timberland Road Barronett, WI 54813-9540 I further certify that the foregoing has been sentviaFacsimile and by U.S. First class Mail this date to: Administ.:-ative Law ,Judge The Honorable J.E. Sullivan Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 Fax: (202) 366-7536 And HearingDocket Federal Aviation Administration (Original and One copy) 800 Independence Avenue, SW Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 Washington, DC 20591 Fax: (202) 493-5142 Attn: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430