04/10/2012 08:51 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

ln the Matter of Conrad Rzewuski. 

Respondent 

FAA Docket No. [To be Assigned] 

DMS No.: FAA 2012-0021 

FAA Region: Western Pacifi(: 

Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

li1J 002 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO DEEM ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED AND 

MOTION FOR DECISION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE. MOTION TO LIMIT THE 

ISSUES AT HEARING TO SANCTION 

To: Hon. Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge, and to Comad Rzewuski, 

1 "Respondent"): 

COMES NOW, the Regional Counsel of the Western-Pacific Region of the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, and files this Motion to Deem Allegations 

Admitted and Motion for Decision to issue an order assessing civil penalty, or in the 

alternative, to deem allegations admitted and to limit the hearing to the amount of the 

t'anction pursuant to sections 13.218(a) and (f)(5), and 13.209(f) of Title !4 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. This motion is based on the fact no answer has been filed by 

Respondent. 

Section 13.209(f) of the Rules of Practice [14 C.P.R. Section 13.209(f)] states: "A 

person's failure to file an answer without good cause shall be deemed an admission to the 

i ruth of each allegation contained in the complaint." The Complaint and accompanying cover 

Jetter in this case were sent to Respondent on January 25, 2011. The Complaint alleged: 
04/10/2012 08:51 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 

L On or about July 6, 2011, at approximately 2230 local time, Respondent 

struck a Phoenix Police helicopter that-was flying near Phoenix, Arizona, with 

a beam of light from a laser pointer. 

2. The beam of light interfered with a crewmember in the performance of the 

crewmember' s duties aboard that aircraft. 

Respondent was advised of the requirement to file an answer in the cover letter that 

uccompani.ed the Complaint. Respondent was also advised ofthis requirement in the 

A.dministrative Law Judge's February 16,2012, Procedural Order served upon all parties at 

their addresses of record. 

Section 13.209(a) of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations [14 C.P.R. section 

13.209(a)] requires a respondent to file an answer no later than thirty (30) days after service. 

Pursuant to section 13.211, the date of service is the date on the proof of service, and after 

service by mail, an additional five (5) days is added to the prescribed period for a response. 

Accordingly, an answer was due on February 29, 2012, which is thirty-five (35) days after 

141003 

January 25, 201 1, (the date the Complaint was served). To date, no answer has been received 

by Complainant from Respondent, nor has there been a request for an extension. of time in 

. which to file an answer. In view of the above, Complainant moves that the allegations in the 

complaint be deemed admitted. As a result, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the 

Complainant is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. 

Complainant requests that the Judge issue an Order Assessing Civil Penalty in the 

amount of$7, 700.00. Alternatively, it is moved that the allegations be deemed admitted and 

tl1e hearing be limited to the issue of the amount of the sanction. 

The sanction requested in this case is reasonable. The FAA's publicly available 

sanction guidance table is contained in Appendix B of FAA Order 2150.3B. For 

individuals not serving in the capacity of airmen, the sanction guidance table, Figure B-3" 

2 
04/10/2012 08:51 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 

p.(l), lists a maximum civil penalty for "Interference with a crewmember (14 C.:F.R. 

91.11.. .)." FAA Order 2150.3B, Appendix B paragraph 3.c.(9), states that for an 

mdividual not serving in the capacity of an airman 1 and has violated a regulation covered 

tmder 49 U.S. C.§ 4630l(a)(5)(A)2

, the maximum civil penalty range is $4,400 to 

$11,000. 

Chapter 7 of FAA Order 2150.3B, which is also available to the public, provides 

1,'1lidance for applying the sanction ranges listed in Appendix B. Ao appropriate sanction 

is selected by beginning with an amount in the middle of the range listed in the sanction 

guidance table and ,increasing that amount for aggravating factors and decreasing the 

amount for mitigating factors listed in Chapter 7, paragraph 4? Therefore, under the 

guidance in FAA Order 2150.3B an appropriate civil penalty for Respondent's violation 

(>f § 91.11, which had no mitigating or aggravating factors, is the middle of the sanction 

range listed above, or $7,700. 

Complainant's choice of sanction in this case as it is not arbitrary, capricious, or 

othernise not according to law.4 Complainant has selected a civil penalty corresponding 

to the range indicated in the sanction guidance table of FAA Order 2150.3B. 

1 Respondent was not acting as an ainnan. 

2 49 U.S.C. § 46301 (a)(5)(A) states: "An individual (except an ainnan serving as an ainnan) or small business 

concern is liable to the Government for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for violating4'11 004 

(i) chapter 401 (except sections 40103 (a) and (d), 40105, 40106 (b), 40116, and 40117), section 44502 (b) or 

(e), chapter 447section 44502 (b) or (c), chapter 447 (except sections 44717--44723), or chapter 449 (except 

sections 44902, 44903 (d), 44904, and 44907-44909) of this title; or (ii) a regulation prescribed or order issued 

under any provision to which clause (i) applies." The statutory authority for 14 CFR § 91.11 is 49 US.C. § 

44701 (a)(5), which states: "The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall promote safe flight 

of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing- ___ (5) regulations and minimwn standards for other practices, 

methods, and procedure the Administrator ftnds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.'' 

1 'hus, Respondent violated regulations prescribed under provisions to which clause (i) of§ 46301 (a)(5)(A) 

'pplies. 

3 FAA Order 2150.3B, paragraph 5.b.(3). 4 See, 49 U.S.C. § 44709(d)(3) 

3 
04/10/2012 08:51 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 

Based on the foregoing, Complainant is entitled to a decision in its favor thall. 

Respondent committed the violation charged and should be assessed a civil penalty rvf 

$7, 700.00. In the alternative, the only issue appropriate for the hearing is the amount of civil 

penalty. 

Respectfully submitted, 

NAOMI TSUDA 

Regional Counsel 

By: .#~Zll Adam Runkel 

Attorney 

Dated: APR 1 0 2012 

4 

141005 
04/10/2012 08:52 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that on this date I sent via United States mail, postage prepaid, the 

executed original and one copy, as well as one copy by facsimile, of the COMPLAINANT'S 

MOTION TO DEEM ALLEGATIONS AD.MJTTED AND MOTION FOR DECISION, OR 

JN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO LI.MJT ISSUES AT HEARING TO SANCTION, 

addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington,DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 

Facsimile: (202) 493-5142 

And by facsimile only to: 

Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

·1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-230 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

1{1]006 

I further certifY that on this date I sent via United States mail, postage prepaiit, a true 

copy of the COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO DEEM ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED AND 

MOTION FOR DECISION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO LIMIT ISSUES AT 

BEARING TO SANCTION, addressed as follows: 

·comad Rzewuski 

7360 W. Via Del Sol 

· Glendale, AZ 8531 0 

Dated: APR 1 0 2012 

_;r-~ JeffK-berg, Legal Technici~ Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Vl estern-Pacific Region 

Lawndale, California 

5