In the Matter of: 

## u.s DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

# REcEIvED
FEDERAL AVIATIONADMINISTRATION 

## JUN 03 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET Joseph R. Maridon, Sr. FAA DOCKET Respondent FAA CASE NO. 2012WP190142 (Civil PenaltyAction)


### Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin MOTION TO DISMISS The Respondent files his Motion To Dismiss for failure ofthe allegations in the notice of proposed action and complaint to state a violation ofthe FAA Actor ofthis chapter 14 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations, pursuantto the Rules ofPractice (14 C.F.R 13.49) This Motion is made and based upon the affidavit attached hereto, argument ofcounsel and all ofthe pleadings and papers on file herein. Respondent states as follows: 

### I. Factual Background The complaint alleges that onor about September 29, 2012 Respondentparked his vehicle on an active taxiway and thereby prevented a VisionAirlines aircraft from taxiing for takeoff. It

### further alleges t.'le vehicle would interfere withthe taxiing ofthe aircraft and thereby interfered withthe flight crewrnembers' performance oftheir duties aboard

### the aircraft. It 

### does not allege essential allegations ofan entry, touching, or any contact whatsoever withthe aircraft. Furthermore, it does not allege a safety violation.



### II. Argument The complaint is insufficient onits face because ofan erroneous interpretation ofthe FAA's authority. The FAA lacksjurisdictionto proceed under the facts alleged. Jurisdiction lies with the airport operator as FAA regulations do notpreemptthe airport operator'sjurisdiction over vehicles ont.'le ground on anairport. The FAA should be estopped from proceeding onthe facts and circumstances ofthis case. The FAAbases its overly broad use ofl4 C.F.R. §91.11 inthis case on an interpretation published in76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 2011) dealing with Interference With a Crewrnember viaLaser. Thatpublication is limited to whether an individual onthe ground can interfere with a Crewrnember with a laser.

### "Aboard" as used in 14 CFR §91.11 and as interpreted bythe complainant in this case is notlegally sustainable. 14 CFR §91.11 states, "No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere witha crewmemberin the performance ofthe crewmember's duties aboard anaircraft being operated." The interpretation sought by the FAA in this case is ambiguous atbest. Aboard is defined as "onboard a ship, train, aircraft, or other passengervehicle". American Heritage Dictionary ofthe English Language (4th Ed.) The issue is who must be onboard for the interference to be committed. The CFR 's define when someone is a crewmember. ''Crewmember 

### means a person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft 

### during flighttime." "Flight

### crew member

### means a pilot, flight engineer, or flight navigatorassigned to duty in 

### an 

### aircraft during**flig..~t** 

### time." (14 CFR §

### 1.1 - General definition.s.) (Emphasis added)**(i~"-licensed** 

### pilot in a passenger seat on an aircraft is not an aircrew unless assigned duties related to that flight.) Thus, it is illogical surplusage if"aboard" refers to the aircrew. As written, 14 C.F.R. §91.11 can referto boththe aircrew and the individual who is alleged to be interfering with them. However, to be a crewmember, the aircrew would normally already be onthe aircraft. Tobe anaircrewthey logically mustbe onboard the aircraft. They have no special status unless they are onthe aircraft and have some duty relatedto the flight Consequently, and logically "aboard" mustrefer to the individual who is alleged to be interfering withthe aircrew. If"aboard" is to be given its broadest possible interpretation, consistent with 76 FR76611,76612 (Dec. 8, 2011), boththe individual and the aircrew must have some physical connectionto the aircraft. The individual can be outside ofthe aircraft and interfere with a flight crew

### t[the individual touches the aircraft, enters the aircraft with any part ofthe individual'sbody 

### or is controlling an object which touches or enters**t.~e** 

### aircraft. This is consistent with the common law, the FAA's interpretation inthe Federal Register andAdmr. 

### v. Siegel 

### cited therein. It is not consistentwiththe overbroad interpretation sought inthis case. Thus, an individual who points a laser at an aircraft, whether it is inflight ornot, is controlling an object that causes entrance into the aircraft thereby interfering withthe flight crewby blinding them. Likewise, in Siegel, 

### the individual although onthe ground, clearly entered the aircraft to strike the pilot. Respondentrecognizes thatthe agency's interpretationin 76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 2011) is entitled to deference. "We further note that the Board is required to deferto the Administrator's interpretation ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations, provided that such interpretation isreasonable and not arbitrary and capricious. 49 U.S.C. § 44709(d)(3); see also Garvey v. NTSB, 190 F.3d 571,576-79 (D.C. Cir. 1999)" Babbitt v. Krivitsky, SE-18355RM. The limitation onthe complaint's interpretation soughtby Respondent gives due deference to, and is consistentwith the FAA's current published interpretation ofthe 14 CFR §91.11. However, the interpretation necessary to sustain the complaint is clearly overbroad and arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, the complaint relies on dicta for support. The Complaint requires taking out ofcontext the statement, "
... supportthe finding that an individual does not need to be on board the aircraft to violate §91.11." 76 FR 76611,76612 (Dec. 8, 2011). That statement taken out ofcontext ofthe entry into the aircraft inSiegel 

### or controlling the instrumentality that

2

### enters the aircraft (laser beam) makes the statement mere dicta. Simply, there mustbe some physical connectionto the aircraft to support a finding ofa violation of §91.11. 

### "Anagency may not, for example, depart from a prior policy sub silentio or simply disregard rules that are still on the books. See United States v. Nixon, 41& U.S. 683, 696, 94 S.Ct. 3090,41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974)"citedwith approval inFederal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 129 S.Ct. 1800, 173 L.Ed.2d 738,77 USLW 4337 (2009) This is what the FAA is doing through its unpublished and unsupported interpretation of 14 CFR §91.11. Just being onthe ground does not put one "aboard" the aircraft. Interference with a Crewmember can be committed from the ground 

## ifthere is some physical connectionwith the aircraft from whichto inferthatthe individual is aboard the aircraft. It

### is notsufficient simply to be on the ground doing whateverthe FAAInspectorarbitrarily and capriciously determines to be interference. To argue thatthe "plain language ofthe regulation does not specify the personinterfering with a crewmembermust be onboard the aircraft" is clearly inconsistentwith the history ofthe FAA's own previous interpretation of §91.11. "Ina later amendment to the rule, the FAA stated that this sectionwas "clearly intended to apply to passengers*** and any other'person' onboard the aircraft." 64 FR 1076, 1077 (Jan. 7, 1999) as cited in 76 FR 76611,76612 (Dec. 8, 2011). Indeed, to be criminally liable for interference with a flight crew one must be "onboard" the aircraft. 49 C. F. R. §46504. Respondent agrees that (1) a person can be onthe ground and interfere with a flight crew 

### if

there is contact with or entry into the aircraft individually orby instrumentality. This is analogous to burglary where an instrument is used. "
... but ifthe actor was also using the instrument to reach some property therein, thenit constituted an entry." Walker v. State, 63 Ala 49(1873) cited inHandbook on Criminal Law, LaFave and Scott p.711, n.32 West 1972. Here, neither the Complaint northe witness statements provided allege, that Respondent was onboard the aircraft, or had any contact, or connection withthe aircraft. The complaint is therefore insufficient onits face. Moreover, the facts alleged in the complaint are properly within the control and jurisdiction ofthe airport operator not the FAA. The FAAregulations do not control vehicles on an airportand 14 CFR §91.11 does notpreempt state statutes or Clark County Ordinances dealing wit.II ground vehicles on a11 

### airport. 76 FR 76611, 76612 (Dec. 8, 2011) does not address vehicles on an airport, itis limited to lasers. FAAAdvisory Circular AC No: 150/5210-20, GROUND VEHICLE OPERATIONS ONAIRPORTS, addresses the issue ofvehicular control. "3. 

### APPLICABILITY. The overall responsibility for the operation ofvehicles on an airport rests with the airport operator.
.." The statement by the FAA Controllers to pilots that "Ramp is Uncontrolled" is clear evidence thatthe FAA has cededjurisdictionto the airport operator. ExhibitA. Affidavit of Joseph R. Maridon, Sr. The Federal AviationActhas no express preemption clause. The Martin ex rel. Heckman v. Midwest Exp. Holdings, Inc., 555 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2009). The FAA hasnotbypervasive 3regulation ofvehicles on airports sought to preemptthe states or counties or airport operators from enacting or enforcing such regulations. FAA Advisory Circular ACNo: 150/5210-20 clearly cedesjurisdiction over vehicles on the airport. In reliance onthis Clark County, Nevada has enacted a pervasive statutory scheme to deal with vehicles onits airports, including penalties. This is consistent withthe longheld view ofthe courts, predatingthe FAA: "
... patrons ofthe field, whetherthey be owners ofproperty abutting upon it or not, have no right inmaking use ofthe field to enter itwiththeir ships except at places and in the manner providedby the rules and regulations ofthe city or its managers and agents in control ofthe field, whichregulations may be changed from time to time as necessity and safety may require. 

### City of Spokane v. Williams, 288 P. 258, 157 Wash. 120 (Wash. 1930)
FAAAdvisory Circular ACNo: 150/5210-20, GROUND VEHICLE OPERATIONS ON AIRPORTS reiterates this view stating in pertinent part:
a. 3. 

### APPLICABILITY. The overall responsibility for the operation ofvehicles on an airport rests withthe airport operator
... a. Airport operators should establishprocedures and policies concerning vehicle access and vehicle operation on the airside ofthe airport. These procedures and policies should address such matters as access, vehicle operator requirements, vehicle requirements, operations, and enforcement and should be incorporated into tenant leases and agreements. NorthLas Vegas Airport, is owned and operated by Clark County, Nevada. Clark County Code 

### § 20.08.010 states inpertinentpart: 20.08.010 Traffic regulations-Vehicular movement generally. (a) The "Rules oftheRoad" set forth in Chapter 484 oftheNevadaRevised Statutes at NRS 484.251, et seq., as amended, and Title 14 ofthis code shall be applicable to and shall governmotor vehicle operation uponthe real property known as McCarran International Airport 

### or upon other county airports as ifthe roadways were dedicated and considered highways under said statutes and Title 14 except as otherwise provided by those regulations set forth in orpromulgatedpursuantto this chapter. 

### (emphasis added)
Clark County has further established Rules and Regulations for its General Aviation Airports, and has promulgated the appropriate rules which state:
Noperson shall operate an aircraft at a General Aviation Airport in an unsafe or careless manner or in disregard ofthe rights and safety ofothers. 

### AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, Rules and Regulations for General AviationAirports p.3 The sectionregarding Restricted 

### Operations: states:

4

### The Director, or designee, may restrict the allowable types ofaircraft operations on certain runways during noise sensitive hours, or for other operational considerations. Rules and Regulations for General AviationAirports , P

### .4 Those rules provide penalties from $100.00 to $1,000.00 per violation per day for violations of the rules. Those failures include:

... fail(ure ) to comply with applicablefederal, 

### state, local and/ or DOA safety and health standards, regulations, or operating directives. Director, or designee, has the authority to enforce compliance with all applicable standards, regulations, or operating directives

.... It

### has long been Respondent's understanding that vehicle matters on the ground at an airport are within thejurisdiction ofthe airport operators. In

### fact, he specifically contacted the Airport Manager aboutthe issue aboutthe VisionAirlines pilots taking the "backway" "shortcut" to runway 7. He placedhis reliance onprior practice and the representations inFAA Advisory Circular ACNo: 150/5210-20, GROUND VEHICLE OPERATIONS ON AIRPORTS (Affidavit ofJoseph R. Maridon, Sr. attached hereto and incorporated hereinbythis reference) In

### this case, there is no published legal authority for the interpretation necessary to expand thejurisdiction ofthe FAAto the facts alleged in the complaint. The Complaint is also inconsistentwith the arguments and representations in the Federal Register. Withoutthat legal 

### published authority, the FAA lacksjurisdictionto pursue this case and 

### their complaintis insufficient on its face. The FAA's decisionto proceed underthese facts and circumstances is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

The FAA should be Estopped from Proceeding on the Complaint and the Complaint should be dismissed 

### The NTSB has recognized that equitable estoppel applies in administrative cases: Wehave previously recognized that equitable estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a person from adopting a newpositionthat contradicts a previous position when allowing the new position would unfairly harm another personwho has relied onthe previous positionto his orher detriment.Administrator v. Coughlan, 

### NTSB OrderNo. EA-5197 at 10 n.lO (20051 (citing Merriam-Webster's Dictionary ofLaw (1996)). Blakey v. Coughlan, 

### SE-17000 Estoppel will notbe applied underthe following circumstances: (estoppel does not apply where the public interest and safety in air commerce are at stake, and where the Administrator's powers are so clearly granted by statute). Administrator v. Fisher, 6 NTSB 1292 (1989), affd. Fisher v. DOT, 917 F.2d 27 (9th Cir. 1990)

5Respondent clearly relied onprevious position ofF AAthatthe airport operator is responsible for vehicle operations onthe airport. (Exhibit A, Affidavit ofJoseph R. Maridon, Sr.) His detriment is thatthe FAAhas chosen to move forward with an alleged violation of 14 CFR §91.11 when that allegation is contrary tothe FAA's previously stated position inFAAAdvisory Circular AC No: 150/5210-20 that vehicles on an airport are subject to thejurisdiction ofthe operator ofthe airport, not the FAA. Moreover, there were no safety issues at stake created bythe actions alleged against respondent the vehicle was clearly visible to the pilots and they were able to stop. Safety issues ifpresent, were caused bythe pilots ofVision Airlines taking a "short cut" with limited visibility for themselves and the tower. Moreover, it is in the public interestthat vehicles onthe airportbe controlledbythe airport operator andthatinterest is clearly addressed bythe Clark County Code. Finally, it is clear that the FAA's statutory powers do not apply inthis factual circumstance, because they have been ceded to the airport operator. Conclusion The complaint should be dismissed because: itis insufficient on its face, the FAA lacks jurisdiction and it should be estopped from proceeding onthe complaintbased onprior inconsistentrepresentations. Respectfully submitted, /S/ 7osepfi OR. 'Maridon,**7~** JosephR. Maridon, Jr. Attorney atLaw Counsel for Respondent 6130 Elton Ave. Las Vegas. NV 89107

Attorney at Law Counsel for Re;;po1J'de:nt 13435 North Whitehouse Court Spokane, W A 99208

# DATED:~Zd~

6U.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATIONADMINISTRATION

# REcEIvED

In the Matter of: 

## JUN 03 2014 

## HEAHING DOCKET Joseph R. Maridon, Sr. Respondent FAA DOCKET FAA CASE NO. 2012WP190142 (Civil PenaltyAction)
Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin AFFIDAVIT OFJOSEPH R. MARIDON, SR. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

STATE OF WASHINGTON ) : ss COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) I, JOSEPH R. MARIDON, SR., being first duly sworn on oath, under penalty ofpetjury, deposes and says: I. I am 71 years ofage. I have personal knowledge ofthe facts setforth herein, except for those matters statedto be based upon information and belief, which matters Tbelieve to be true. 2. I am a licensed Professional Engineer. I have owned and operated an airport and have knowledge ofthe rules and regulations regarding their safe operations. T am further aware that vehicular land operations on an airport are within thejurisdiction and responsibility ofthe operator ofthe airport as represented in FAA Advisory Circular No: 150/5210-20, GROUND VEIDCLE OPERATIONS ON AIRPORTS on which I have relied and continue to rely. 3. On a number ofoccasions before September 12, 20121 contacted the North Las Vegas Airport Manager andrequested that Vision Airlines not taxi bymyhanger due to the excessive noise generated by the Do228 Dornier operated byVision Airlines due to its adverse effect on myselfand myvisiting grand child. 4. I also had serious safety concerns about large commercial aircraft taxiing in that area because there arenumerous "blind alleys" from therows ofenclosed hangers on theright and left ofthat taxiway.I have seen small aircraft on the taxiway in question come nose to nose with other aircrafttaxiing from those enclosed hanger rows to the right and left ofthetaxiways. (Depicted in exhibit A attached hereto and incorporatedhereinbythis reference) 5. I have owned the hanget· depicted in Exhibit A before September 12, 2012. When the FAA Control Tower (oldtower) was between my hanger and the Vision Airlines ramp, Vision aircraft did not

use the route that passed next to my hanger. It was my understanding based on information and belief thatthis was due to noise abatement and safety issues, although the controller from the old tower could clearly see the aircraft on the taxiway in question and in the hangerrows near thetaxiway. 6. The new FAA Control Tower is now across the airfield and has a restricted view ofthose hanger rows and does not control the taxiway that passedby my hanger. The Controllers in the tower frequently state overthe radio to pilots words tothe effect, "Ramp is uncontrolled" whenthe pilots request taxi instructions. The controllers at NorthLasVegas Airport have also notedthat their visibility from the newtower is limited inthat area. (Exhibit B, VGT Bulletin page 2, July 2013, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference) 7. There is a safer, alternative route that was previously used by Vision aircraft. Itpasses the open shade hangers and the fuel pumps and on to Taxiway "A" that gives the controllers in the newtower

a far betterview oftaxiing commercial aircraft, is less noisy to the tenants, and gives theVision pilots a better view ofsmall aircraft and vehicles moving in and aboutthe open shade hangers, because there are
no blind alleys. (Exhibit A) 8. The "backway" taken by the Do228 Domier pilots, as characteri7£d inthe pilot's and copilot's statements, is a shorterroute to the run-up area than the safer, alternative route described in paragraph 7. On information and helief, it is apparentthattheVision pilots weretaking an unsafe short cut to savetime and fuel since in my experience there is rarely any "congestion" at the fuel pumps that would hinder an aircraft taxiing in the area ofthe fuel pumps atthe North Las Vegas Airport.

2Further, Affiant sayeth naught. 

# '**~ c::ut«Ac."'-~**  

# J,.,
. Date
SUBSCRIBED and SWORNto before me, :1 /)'-fi, this ,d) day ofMay, 2014.**~** Notary Public 

### State ofWashington 

### Jeri L. Mainer MY EXPIRES

3ExhibitA to Affidavit ofJoseph R. Maridon, Sr. Aerial views ofNorthLas Vegas Airport and FAA Diagram LEGEND 1. New Tower 2. Area ofalleged incident 3. Vision Airlines Ramp 4. Enclosed "Blind Alley" Hangers (Right and Left ofTaxiway) 5. Open Shade Hangers 6. Fuel Pumps 7. Maridon Hanger 8. Old Tower Site 9. Run-up area Runway 7 "G" Taxiway G "F" Taxiway F AAA
... Shortcut "Back way" takenby Vision Airlines pilots BBB
... Safer routeby ShadeHangers viaTaxiway A Scale W' to 50' (enlarged aerial view) Do 228 Wingspan 55'8"13346 

# AIRPORT DIAGRAM

ATIS 118.05 NORTH LAS VEGAS TOWER* 125.7 360.75 GNDCON 121.7 CLNC DEL 124.0

JANUARY 20 I 0 ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE O.I"W Al-6970 !FAA)



# ---- ---

CORPORATE 

# -7=-. 

# I

HANGARS '
HANGARS
-

RWY07-25 S-30 RWY 12l-30R S-30 RWY 12R-30l S-30 

# --- I NORTH LAS VEGAS (VGT) LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

TWR



# ***~** HANGAR


# ../

2230± 

### A**l--~--'-----~--'------t---'------'----~--'----I--~-'---'---36'12.0'N**

CAUTION: BE ALERT TO RUNWAY CROSSING CLEARANCES. READBACK OF All RUNWAY HOLDING INSTRUOIONS IS REQUIRED. 

# I I

115'12.0'W 115'11.5'W 

# AIRPORT 11IAGR_AM LAS VEGAS, NEVADA NORTH LAS VEGAS (VGT) 13346

# ~ UJ

### Exhibit B to Affidavit ofJoseph R. Maridon, Sr. NorthLas Vegas Airport Bulletin, July 2013, page 2, Noting Limited Visibility ofNorth Las Vegas Controllers visibility in Hanger Area depicted in Exhibit A

### BEN'S BRIEFING AIRFIELD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT- To improve airport safety and efficiencythe airfield geometries has been changed pursuant to the direction ofthe FAA Please remember to "stay off the green". The new configuration will provide a visual queue to assist transient pilots in navigating around the airport. The intent of the green islands is to provide funneling and ensure that the aircraft is**situ<~ted** perpendicular to the mandatory hold bar.

GUY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOUR
- One hundred and ten students visited VGT from Guy Elementary. A "Big Thanks" to Airwork LLC, Dave Edwards, EGA Aviation, EliteAviation, Jeff Farmer, FAA ATCT, Chet Kruleski, SWAT, and Vision Air for displaying aircraft and meeting with the children to get them even more excited about aviation! Community outreach and fostering enthusiasm in today's youth is extremely important to the future of aviation. STAKEHOLDERS MEETING The next Stakeholder meeting is scheduled on September 19, 2013 at 6:00p.m. FACILITY UPDATE
- For your convenience there are several waste oil collection barrels located throughout the airport Please dispose waste oil only in these collection sites. The DOA routinely has the waste oil removed and reprocessed. MEMORIAL
- Larry James Siggelkow left us too soon, on April 28, 2013 after living a very full life and touching so many lives along the way. He was born on December 24th, 1947 and grew up in Garden City and was very active in the Community Christian Center. He earned his pilot's license on his 16th birthday and continued to fly his entire life. In Las Vegas he joined the police department where he proudly served for over 30 years in various capacities. He was instrumental in helping the police force integrate with aviation assets and spearheaded many of its penal transportation programs. Always known as a hard worker who possessed many creative and innovative ideas, Larry would take his natural entrepreneurial spirit and focus efforts on building one of the most successful charter airlines in the Las Vegas area. He retired in 2011 and returned to Boise to be near his family and spend what he called his H-A-P-P-Y years, fishing in his backyard, doing regular goose patrols, running on his favorite trails, and spending time with his beloved wife. Larry was a true gentleman and served as a genuine example of humanity to all who had the pleasure of knowing him. He will be deeply missed. PROJECT CONCEPT APPROVAL- Ifyou are planning any improvements to your hangar or commercial facility you must receive approval from the DOA before proceeding. The Business Office will complete a Project ConceptApproval form based on your complete project description and concept drawing (email to the Airport Manager Bencz@ mccarran.com or submit to the office). North Las Vegas Airport Airport Manager 2730 Airport Drive, Suite 101 North Las Vegas, Nevada 89032 DOA will respond to your request as soon as possible (may take a few weeks based on the complexity of the project). A Project Coordinator will be assigned to assist you and a pre-construction kick-off meeting will be scheduled. During construction, the contractor will work with the DOA Project Coordinator and Inspector to complete the Project Acceptance Checklist. When all checklist items have been completed (including the submission of As-Builts), DOA Construction/Engineering will confirm that all business/ acquisition issues have been completed before closing the project. All projects shall be in accordance with the Tenant Improvement Manual located on-line at http:// www.mccarran.com/Doing Busness /te nant_improvement. html.Keep offthe Grass! More precisely, keep offthe green painted areas in the vicinity of Rwy 7 and Taxiway G & F. In an effort to reduce the number of pilot deviations, many airport layout changes have been made or are in progress. Over the last decade, VGT has constantly been near the top nationwide for the most runway incursions annually; but we're changing that. Currently, we are well below are historical year to date average and well on ourway to a spectacularyear. However, with the change in geographical layout come some issues that all pilots should be aware. One issue to note is that there is limited visibility from the control tower of the ramp at the entrance of taxiway G. Aircraft taxiing westbound passing taxiway F and aircraft taxiing eastbound from runup area or from behind the hangars must use goodjudgment and exercise caution as the ramp 

### is a nonmovement area (non-controlled) and out of the line of site from the tower. Another issue to be cautious with is aircraft should be utilizing appropriate lights while taxiing after sunset as blue reflectors are being temporarily utilized to delineate taxiway edges where the green islands have been added. Third, the run up area is no longer a movement area; ATC may or may not be aware of the presence of aircraft taxiing in the vicinity. And last, the taxi clearance, 'Runway 7, taxi via G' authorizes aircraft to cross taxiway A and up to the hold short marking for Runway 7. Many aircraft are stopping short oftaxiway A and contacting Tower prior to entering the movement area. While not an issue in itself, during peak traffic periods, holding short of taxiway A may cause blockages in the taxi lane. As summer approaches, it is vital for pilots to stay aware of weather conditions and its impact to the performance of aircraft. Increased takeoff distance, reduced rate of climb, increased true air speed on landing and approach, and increased landing roll distance are all affected by density altitude. Additionally, thunderstorms can develop rapidly and should be cause for concern. Until next time, heads up, hold short, fly right.



### Grand Canyon Room 2nd Monday- CAP- Nellis Sr. Squadron 4th Monday
- CAP
- Nellis Sr. Squadron 1

stTuesday
- EAA Chapter 163 2nd Tuesday
- 1/4 Scale Assoc- 6:45pm 1st Wednesday
- Commemorative Air Force 2nd Wednesday- Rebel Squadron (In Modular Building) 4th Wednesday- Prop- Nuts Every Thurs.
- Clark County Composite Squadron Civil Air Patrol 4th Thursday -FAA FAST TEAM 

### Conference Room 4th Monday
- Dust Devils 1stTuesday
- CAP 2nd Tuesday- LV Eagles 3rd Tuesday- 99s- 5:30pm- 7:00pm 4th Tuesday- LV Balloon Club 3rd Wednesday -Commemorative Air Force Every Thurs.
- Clark County Composite Squadron Civil Air Patrol
{All meetings are at 7PM unless otherwise noted.) COMMISSIONERS Steve Sisolak, Chair Larry Brown,

Vice-Chair Susan Brager Tom Collins Chris Giunchigliani

Mary Beth Scow LawrenceWeekly

Donald G. Burnette,

CountyManager Assistant County Managers EdwardFinger Randall J. Tarr Jeffrey M. Wells RosemaryA. Vassiliadis, Director of Aviation Harry Waters, DeputyDirector

Cecil Jolmson, AssistantDirector,

GeneralAviation Ben Czyzewski, Manager, GAAirports Cheryl Jackson, Customer ServiceU.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

# REcEIvE0 JUN 

## 03 2014 

## HEAHING DOCKET In the Matter of: Joseph R. Maridon, Sr. Respondent

Richard C. GoodwinAdministrative Law Judge DocketNo. FAA-2014-0116

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FAADOCKET FAA CASE NO. 2012WP190142 (Civil PenaltyAction)

1hereby certify that I am overthe age ofeighteen years and not a party to the within action. I further certify that onthe

## 2:1!._ day of 

## 911 a.

## tj ,2014, I deposited inthe U.S. Mail, withpostage fully prepaid, a true and correct copy of : (1) MotionTo Dismiss (2) Affidavit Of Joseph R.Maridon, Sr addressed to the following: ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 

### Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur-Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 ONE COPY Joseph Maridon, Sr., Respondent 9212 E. FrederickAve Spokane, WA 99206-4303 Jospeph R. Maridon,Jr., Respondent's Counsel Attorney at Law 6130 Elton Ave Las Vegas, NV 89107

### Naomi Tsuda, Complainant's Counsel Office oftheRegional Counsel, AWP-7 Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region, P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7100 FPLX:310-725-6816

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FPLX: 202-366-7536

# /s/~L~