-----------------------------------------------------------

In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: APRIL 15,2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2015-0203 

ROMNEY CYCLE CENTER 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 201380700320 

Respondent 

ORDER FINDING GOOD CAUSE, 

GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO FILE LATE ANSWER, 

AND ACCEPTING RESPONDENT'S ANSWER 

-: ~ ;: 't 

On February 2, 2015 the Respondent, Romney Cycle Center, served the Federal Aviation 

Administration ("FAA") with a Request for Hearing. On February 9, 2015 the FAA served the 

Respondent with its Complaint. Among other things, this Complaint noted that pursuant to 14 

C.F.R. § 13.209(a), the Respondent's Answer to the Complaint was due "not later than 30 days" 

after service. 

The next day, on February 10,2015 the FAA filed the Complaint and the Respondent's 

Request for Hearing with the Office of Hearings. 

On March 23,2015, the Respondent") filed a Motion to File Out of Time Answer 

("Motion") and an Answer to the Complaint. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.218(d) (i.e., 10 day deadline) and §13.211(e) (i.e., 5 day 

mailing rule), the FAA's Response (if any) was due on or before April 7, 2015. 

On April 7, 2015 the FAA did not file a Response. As oftoday's date, the FAA has not 

filed a Response. 
Brief Discussion 

It is well-established that an untimely answer cannot be accepted without a showing of 

good cause. 14 C.F.R. § 13.209(f); see, e.g., Larry's Flying Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 98-4 at 

2-3 (Mar. 12, 1998). 

It is undisputed that the Respondent's Answer was filed late. The Respondent asserted 

that its Answer was due on or before March 17, 2015, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.209(a) and 

13.211(e). (Mot. 1.) This is a slight error in calculation, since the Respondent used February 10, 

2015- the date the Complaint was date-stamped received by the FAA's Hearing Docket- as its' 

reference. In fact, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.210(b), the operative date for calculating the 

Answer due date is the mailing date found on the certificate of service-in this case February 9, 

2015-. making the Respondent's answer due by March 16,2015, rather than March 17,2015. 

However, in the instant case the difference of one (1) day has no effect on the ultimate issue. 

The Respondent presented several arguments in support of a good cause finding. For 

example, the Respondent noted that its counsel did not see the Complaint until the date of the 

Motion-March 23, 2015. Counsel was "engaged in a significant matter out of town ... during 

the time that the Complaint was purportedly sent[.]" (Mot. 2.) Upon return, counsel "had several 

court hearings, depositions, and professional commitments" before going out of town again. (!d.) 

The Respondent emphasized that its counsel and his staff was usually time conscious and 

responsive, and that the fact that a timely Answer was not filed in this action was very atypical. 

(Jd.) When the Respondent's counsel did see the Complaint on March 23, 2015; immediate 

action was taken that same day. (!d.) As a result, the Respondent's Motion and Answer were 

filed seven (7) days late (i.e., March 16,2015 + 7 days= March 23, 2015). 

( 

The Respondent pointed out that it did not have a history of misconduct. It noted that 

"this is its first time" to be formally involved with an FAA proceeding or with this Court. (!d. at 

3 (citing Larry's Flying Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 98-4, 1998 WL 158281 at *2 (Mar. 12 

1998))). The Respondent also asserted (without dispute) that the FAA had not been prejudiced 

by the 7-day delay in the filing ofits late Answer. In addition, the Respondent argued that it 

"would suffer significant prejudice if it were denied its opportunity to seek relief[.]" (!d. (citing 

Page 2. of 2. 
-------------

Safety Equipment and Sign, Co., LTD., FAA Order No. 92-76, 1992 WL 753223, at *2 (Dec. 21, 

1992); David Lloyd Cornwall. FAA Order No. 92-47, 1992 WL 753155, at *2 (Jul. 22, 1992))). 

The Respondent also pointed out (without dispute) that before filing its Motion and 

Answer, it attempted to discuss the matter with the FAA (by telephone and e-mail), but the FAA 

failed to respond. (Mot. 2, fn. 1.) 

"Wherever possible, cases should be disposed of on the merits after a hearing, rather than 

summarily because of a procedural defect." Cornwall, FAA Order No. 92-4 7 at 7. As noted 

earlier, the FAA's Response (if any) was due on or before April 7, 2015. As ofthe date ofthis 

Order, the FAA has not filed any Response or statement in opposition to the Respondent's 

Motion. See 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.218(d), 13.2ll(e). 

The Respondent has shown good cause for the 7-day delay in filing its Answer, and this 

case should proceed to the merits. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205(a)(6), (8), and 13.209(f) and having reviewed the case 

file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, 

and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1) The Respondent has established good cause for filing a late Answer. 

2) The Respondent's Motion to File Out of Time Answer is granted. 

3) The Respondent's Answer accompanying the Motion is accepted. 

4) A separate Order will issue shortly, notifying the parties of a Rule 16 Litigation 

Scheduling Conference. 

Attachment: Service List 
Docket No. FAA-2015-0203 

(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-Suite 2W 10001 

Ms. Rashawn Rich George 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

ONE COPY 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7, Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Brian W. Stolarz 

Respondent's Counsel 

Leclair Ryan 

2318 Mill Road, Suite 1100 

Alexandria, VA 223 14 

TEL: 703-684-8007 

FAX: 703-684-8075 

E-MAIL: Brian.Stolarz@leclairryan.com 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Romney Cycle Center 

Respondent 

Attn: President 

51 Industrial Park 

Romney, WV 26757 

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 2W 1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: 

Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.