iRTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO Nf^r*-/^r-fv/3—- ^ 

## OFFIC EO FHEARING S H fc W1 1 V II I O U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S FEDERA LAVIATIO NADMINISTRATIO N

FEDERALAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION , Complainant , vs . AI RIRA N AIRWAYS , Respondent . INC . 

### JU N 

### - 3 201 0 

## HEAnlN G DOCKE T

FA A Docke t

No . CP10SO000 2 Judg e Benki n

AGENCY' S RESPONS ET O RESPONDENT' S FIRS T DISCOVER Y REQUES T T O COMPLAINAN T Th e Agency , b y th e undersigne dcounsel , an dpursuan t t o 1 4 C.F. R13.220 , an dRule s 3 3 an d3 4 o f th e Federa l Rule s o f

Civi l Procedur e th e hereb y file s it s Response s t o Respondent' s Interrogatorie s an dReques t for Productio na s follows :

OBJECTION S 1 . Complainan t

object s t o th e Request s t o th e exten t tha t the y purport

t o cal l for

productio n o f document s an dinformatio n protecte db y th e privileg e for deliberativ e agenc y process , attorne y work

produc t doctrine , o r

an y othe r applicabl e privilege . 2 . Complainan t

object s t o th e Request s t o th e exten t the y cal l for

th e productio no f

document s an dinformatio n i n th e possessio no f thir dpartie s no t

withi nth e contro l o f

th e FAA . 3 . Complainan t

object s t o th e Request s t o th e exten t the y cal l for

th e productio no f

document s an dinformatio n tha t

fal l outsid e th e scop e o f permissibl e discovery , includin g but not limite d t o th e exten t

that th e Request s cal l for

informatio ntha t

i s no t relevan t t o th e subjec t

matte r o fth e proceedin g no r coul db e construe da s bein g reasonabl y calculate dt o lea dt o th e discovery o f relevan t o r admissibl e evidence .

INTERROGATORIE S Interrogatory No . 1 : State th e nam e o f

eac hperso n answerin g o r assistin g i nanswerein g eac ho f th e followin g discovery requests , thei r

employe r

an dtitl e o r

positio nincludin g thei r

busines s mailin g address , an dth e discovery reques t the y answere do r

assiste di nanswering . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 1 : Th e undersigne dattorne y prepare dth e response s t o th e Interrogatories . Interrogatory No . 2 : Stat e th e name , busines s address , telephon e number , plac e o f employmen t

an djo b titl e o f

an y preso n wh o has , claim s t o hav e o r who myo u believ e may hav e knowledg e o r informatio n pertainin g t o any fac t

o r sanctio n allege di nth e pleading s (a s define di n§13.20 2 o f th e Rule s o f Practic e an dFedera l Rule s o f Civi l Procedur e 7(a) ) filedi nthi s action , o r an y fac t o r sanctio n underlyin g th e subjec t

matte r o f thi s action . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 2 : 1 . Dicki e Lon g Aviatio nSafet

y Inspecto r

Operation s Staf

f Specialis t SouthernRegio n - Fligh t

Standard s Division , ASO-23 0 FA A Southern Regiona l Offic e 170 1 Columbi aAvenu e Colleg e Park , G A 3033 7 (404 ) 305-607 3 2 . Thoma s T . Frish e Ai r Carrie r Operation s Specialis t Southern Regio n - Fligh t

Standard s Division , ASO-23 0 FA A Southern Regiona l Offic e 170 1 Columbi aAvenu e Colleg e Park , G A 3033 7 (404 ) 305-610 6Kathi e Doric k Aviatio n Safet

y Inspecto r

Cabi nSafet

y Airtra nCM O FA A Delt aAirline s CMO-2 7 107 Charle s W . Gran t

Pkw y Hapeville , G A 3035 4 (404)474-584 1 Interrogatory No . 3 : Stat e th e specifi c natur e an dsubstanc e o f th e knowledg e tha t

yo u believ e th e person(s ) identifie d i n you r respons e t o interrogatory No . 2 may have . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 3 : Th e individual s indentifie di n Interrogatory No . 2 hav e knowledg e o f th e fact s leadin g t o th e allegation s brough t

b y Complainant . Th e individual s als o hav e knowledg e o f th e FA A polic y an dprocedure s for

determinin g th e appropriat e amoun t o f civi l penalt y for

violation s o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s charged , includin g whethe r t o conside r

any mitigatin g o r aggravatin g factors . Interrogatory No . 4 : Stat e th e name , occupation , an dbusines s addres s o f eac hperso nComplainan t intend s t o cal l a s a non-expert

witnes s i n thi s proceeding . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 4 : 1 . Thoma s T . Frish e Ai r Carrie r Operation s Specialis t Southern Regio n - Fligh t

Standard s Division , ASO-23 0 FA A Southern Regiona l Offic e 170 1 Columbi aAvenu e Colleg e Park , G A 3033 7 (404 ) 305-610 6Interrogatory No . 5 :

Stat e th e subjec t

matte r upo n whic heac hintende dno nexpert witnes s i s expecte dt o testif y an d th e fact s composin g th e testimon y o f eac hintende dno nexpert witness . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 5 : Se e Complainant' s Respons e t o Prehearin g Orde r serve dJun e 1 , 2010 . Interrogatory No . 6 : I f th e Complainan t

intend s t o cal l anexpert witnes s at

th e hearing , stat e th e witness ' name , occupation , an dbusines s addres s a s wel l a s th e qualification s o f thi s witnes s tha t

Complainan t intend s t o rel y upo n t o permi t thi s intende dwitnes s t o offe r expert opinio ntestimony . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 6 : Th e Complainan t

doe s no t inten dt o cal l anexpert

witness . Interrogatory No . 7 : Stat e th e subjec t

matte r upo n whic hintende dexpert witnes s i s expecte dt o testif y an dth e fact s composin g th e testimon y o f eac hintende dexpert

witnes s a s wel l a s providin g i ndetai l th e substanc e o f

th e opinion s t o b e provide db y eac hperso nwho myo u may us e a s anexpert witnes s at th e hearing . Repons e t o Interrogatory No . 7 : Th e Complainan t

doe s no t inten dt o cal l anexpert

witness . Interrogatory No . 8 : Pleas e stat e th e factor s reliedupon , an dth e weigh t give nt o each , t o arriv e at th e propose dcivi l penalty o f

$15,00 0 i n thi s action , an danexplanatio no f ho w yo u compute deac hfacto r i narrivin g at th e assesse dcivi l penalty . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 8 : Se e Complainant' s Motio n for Judgemen t

o nth e Pleadings , o r

i nth e Alternativ e hearing o n sactio n onl y filedApri l 30 , 2010 .Interrogatory No . 9 :

Pleas e identif

y eac hdocimien t

(includin g electronicall y store dinformation ) pertainin g t o eac h facto r state di n you r

respons e t o interrogatory No . 8 above . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 9 : Se e Complainant' s Motio n for Judgemen t

o nth e Pleadings , o r

i nth e Alternativ e hearing o n sactio n onl y filedApri l 30 , 2010 . Interrogatory No . 10 : Pleas e identif

y eac hdocumen t

yo u inten dt o proffer

int o evidenc e at

th e hearing . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 10 : Se e Complainant' s Prehearin g Submission s filedJun e 1 , 2010 . Interrogatory No . 11 : Fo r th e perio dprio r

t o Jul y 9-16 , 2007 , stat e th e numbe r o f instance s wher e th e Responden t was foun dt o hav e no t

complie dwithPart

121.467(b)(13 ) o f

th e Federa l Aviatio nRegulations , th e dates o f thos e events , an dth e sanction s imposed . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 11 : Objection . Complainan t object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t call s for th e productio n o f informatio n tha t

fall s outside th e scop e o f permissibl e discovery , includin g bu t not limite dt o th e exten t tha t th e Interrogatory call s for informatio ntha t

i s not relevan t t o th e subjec t

matte r o f th e proceedin g no r

coul di t b e construe da s bein g reasonabl y calculate dt o lea dt o th e discovery o f relevan t o r admissibl e evidence .Interrogatory No . 12 :

Fo r th e perio dsinc e Jul y 9-16 , 2007 , an dcontinuin g throug hth e curren t date , stat e th e numbe r

o f instance s wher e th e Responden t was found , o r

wa s allege dt o hav e not complie dwithPart 121.467(b)(13 ) o f

th e Federa l Aviatio nRegulations , th e dates o f thos e events , an dth e sanction s impose do r

pending . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 12 : Objection . Complainan t object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t call s for th e productio n o f informatio n tha t

fall s outsid e th e scop e o f permissibl e discovery , includin g bu t no t limite dt o th e exten t tha t th e Interrogatory call s for informatio ntha t

i s not relevan t t o th e subjec t

matte r o f th e proceedin g no r

coul di t b e construe da s bein g reasonabl y calculate dt o lea dt o th e discovery o f relevan t o r admissibl e evidence . Interrogatory No . 13 : Fo r th e perio dprio r

t o Jul y 9-16 , 2007 , stat e th e numbe r o f instance s wher e th e Responden t wa s foun dt o hav e not

complie dwithPart

121.46 7 (Fligh t

Attendan t

Duty Perio dLimitation s an d Rest Requirements) , excludin g (b)(13 ) o f th e Federa l Aviatio nRegulations , th e date s o f thos e events , an dth e sanction s imposed . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 13 : Objection . Complainan t object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t call s for th e productio n o f informatio n tha t

fall s outsid e th e scop e o f permissibl e discovery , includin g but not limite dt o th e exten t tha t th e Interrogatory call s for informatio ntha t

i s not relevan t t o th e subjec t

matte r o f th e proceedin g no r

coul di t b e construe da s bein g reasonabl y calculate dt o lea dt o th e discovery o f relevan t o r admissibl e evidence .Interrogatory No . 14 :

Fo r th e perio dsinc e Jul y 9-16 , 2007 , an dcontinuin g throug hth e curren t date , stat e th e numbe r

o f instance s wher e th e Responden t wa s found , o r

wa s alleged , t o hav e not complie dwithany provisio n containe di n Part 121.46 7 o f

th e Federa l Aviatio nRegulation s (Fligh t Attendan t

Duty Perio dLimitation s an dRest Requirements) , excludin g (b)(13) , th e dates o f thos e events an dth e sanction s impose do r

pending . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 14 : Objection . Complainan t object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t call s for th e productio n o f informatio n tha t

fall s outsid e th e scop e o f permissibl e discovery , includin g but not limite dt o th e exten t tha t th e Interrogatory call s for informatio ntha t

i s not relevan t t o th e subjec t

matte r o f th e proceedin g no r

coul di t b e construe da s bein g reasonabl y calculate dt o lea dt o th e discovery o f relevan t o r admissibl e evidence . Interrogatory No . 15 : Pleas e stat e whethe r

o r not th e allege dviolatio nse t fort hi nth e Complain t

i nthi s actio n was inadvertent. Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 15 : Objection . Complainan t object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t call s for th e productio n o f informatio n tha t

fall s outsid e th e scop e o f permissibl e discovery , includin g but not limite dt o th e exten t tha t th e Interrogatory call s for informatio ntha t

i s not relevan t t o th e subjec t

matte r o f th e proceedin g no r

coul di t b e construe da s bein g reasonabl y calculate dt o lea dt o th e discovery o f relevan t o r admissibl e evidence . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for

th e productio no f

informatio ntha t

i s withi nth e custod y o r

contro l o f

a thir dparty . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for productio n o f

informatio nprotecte db y th e privileg e for deliberativ e agenc y process , attorne y wor k produc t doctrine , o r

any othe r applicabl e privilege . Notwithstandin g th e above objectio n th eComplainan t state s tha t

th e civi l penalty sough t i nthi s actio ni s th e resul t o f factor s tha t

hav e bee n develope dove r

year s o f polic y makin g an dcas e adjudication . Th e decisio nwhethe r t o prosecut e aparticular

cas e i s basedo narevie w o f th e evidenc e an drelevan t polic y an dlitigtio n considerations . Th e agenc y exercise s broa ddiscretio ni nbot hth e initia l decisio nt o brin g alegal enforcemen t

action , an di n an y late r determinatio nt o compromis e o r settl e acas e base do n variou s considerations . Th e FAA' s discretio ni nthes e area s i s absolut e an dpresume dt o b e immun e fromreview . Heckle r v . Cheney . 47 0 U.S . 821 , 83 1 (1985) . Interrogatory No . 16 : Pleas e stat e whethe r

o r not th e allege dviolatio nse t fort hi nth e Complain t

i nthi s actio n was deliberate . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 16 : Objection . Complainan t object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t that i t call s for th e productio n o f informatio n tha t

fall s outside th e scop e o f permissibl e discovery , includin g but not limite dt o th e exten t tha t th e Interrogatory call s for informatio ntha t

i s not relevan t t o th e subjec t

matte r o f th e proceedin g no r

coul di t b e construe da s bein g reasonabl y calculate dt o lea dt o th e discovery o f relevan t o r admissibl e evidence . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for

th e productio no f

informatio nthat

i s withi nth e custod y o r

contro l o f

a thir dparty . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for productio n o f

informatio n protecte db y th e privileg e for deliberativ e agenc y process , attorne y work produc t doctrine , o r

any othe r applicabl e privilege . Notwithstandin g th e above objectio n th e Complainan t

state s tha t

th e civi l penalty sough t i nthi s actio ni s th e resul t o f factor s tha t

hav e bee n develope dove r

year s o f polic y makin g an dcas e adjudication . Th e decisio nwhethe r t o prosecut e aparticular

cas e i s base do narevie w o f th e evidenc e an drelevan t polic y an dlitigtio n

8considerations . Th e agenc y exercise s broa ddiscretio ni nbot hth e initia l decisio nt o brin g alegal

enforcemen t

action , an di n an y late r determinatio nt o compromis e o r settl e acas e base do n variou s considerations . Th e FAA' s discretio ni nthes e area s i s absolut e an dpresume dt o b e immun e fro mreview . Heckle r v . Cheney . 47 0 U.S . 821 , 83 1 (1985) . Interrogatory No . 17 : Pleas e stat e whethe r

o r no t th e allege dviolatio nse t

fort hi nth e Complain t

wa s th e resul t

o f gros s negligence . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 17 : Objection . Complainan t object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t call s for th e productio n o f informatio n tha t

fall s outsid e th e scop e o f permissibl e discovery , includin g but not limite dt o th e exten t tha t th e Interrogatory call s for informatio ntha t

i s not relevan t t o th e subjec t

matte r o f th e proceedin g no r

coul db e construe da s bein g reasonabl y calculate dt o lea dt o th e discovery o f relevan t o r admissibl e evidence . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for

th e productio n o f

informatio ntha t

i s withi nth e custod y o r

contro l o f

athir d party . Complainan t

als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for productio n o f

informatio n protecte db y th e privileg e for deliberativ e agenc y process , attorne y wor k produc t doctrine , o r

an y othe r applicabl e privilege . Notwithstandin g th e abov e objectio n th e Complainan t

state s tha t

th e civi l penalt y sough t i nthi s actio ni s th e resul t o f factor s that

hav e bee n develope dove r

year s o f polic y makin g an dcas e adjudication . Th e decisio nwhethe r t o prosecut e aparticular

cas e i s basedo narevie w o f th e evidenc e an drelevan t polic y an dlitigtio n considerations . Th e agenc y exercise s broa ddiscretio ni nbothth e initia l decisio nt o brin g alegal enforcemen t

action , an di n an y late r determinatio nt o compromis e o r settl e acas e base do nvariou s considerations . Th e FAA' s discretio ni nthes e area s i s absolut e an dpresume dt o b e

immun e fro mreview . Heckle r v . Cheney . 47 0 U.S . 821 , 83 1 (1985) . Interrogatory No . 18 : Pleas e stat e whethe r

o r not th e allege dviolatio nse t fort hi nth e Complain t

amounte dt o a substantia l disregar dfor

safety . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 18 : Objection . Complainan t object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t call s for th e productio n o f informatio n tha t

fall s outsid e th e scop e o f permissibl e discovery , includin g bu t not limite dt o th e exten t tha t th e Interrogatory call s for informatio ntha t

i s not relevan t t o th e subjec t

matte r o f th e proceedin g no r

coul di t b e construe da s bein g reasonabl y calculate dt o lea dt o th e discovery o f relevan t o r admissibl e evidence . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for

th e productio no f

informatio nthat

i s withi nth e custod y o r

contro l o f

a thir dparty . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for productio n o f

informatio n protecte db y th e privileg e for deliberativ e agenc y process , attorne y wor k produc t doctrine , o r

any othe r applicabl e privilege . Notwithstandin g th e above objectio n th e Complainan t

state s tha t

th e civi l penalty sough t i nthi s actio ni s th e resul t o f factor s tha t

hav e bee n develope dove r

year s o f polic y makin g an dcas e adjudication . Th e decisio nwhethe r t o prosecut e aparticular

cas e i s basedo narevie w o f th e evidenc e an drelevan t polic y an dlitigtio n considerations . Th e agenc y exercise s broaddiscretio ni nbothth e initia l decisio nt o brin g alegal enforcemen t

action , an di n an y late r determinatio nt o compromis e o r settl e acas e base do n variou s considerations . Th e FAA' s discretio ni nthes e area s i s absolut e an dpresume dt o b e immun e fi-omreview . Heckle r v . Cheney . 47 0 U.S . 821 , 83 1 (1985) .

1 0Interrogatory No . 19 :

Pleas e stat e whethe r

o r not th e complianc e history o f th e Responden t

withrespec t

t o Part 121.467(b)(13 ) o f

th e Federa l Aviatio nRegulation s wa s considere di nth e assessmen t o f th e propose dcivi l penalty i n thi s actio nan dwhethe r o r not thi s history resulte di nanincrease do r mitigate dsanctio n o r

civi l penalty . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 19 : Objection . Complainan t object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t call s for th e productio n o f informatio n tha t

fall s outside th e scop e o f permissibl e discovery , includin g but not limite dt o th e exten t tha t th e Interrogatory call s for informatio nthat

i s not relevan t t o th e subjec t

matte r o f th e proceedin g no r

coul di t b e construe da s bein g reasonabl y calculate dt o lea dt o th e discovery o f relevan t o r admissibl e evidence . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for

th e productio no f

informatio ntha t

i s withi nth e custod y o r

contro l o f

a thir dparty . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for productio n o f

informatio n protecte db y th e privileg e for deliberativ e agenc y process , attorne y wor k produc t doctrine , o r

any othe r applicabl e privilege . Notwithstandin g th e above objectio n th e Complainan t

state s tha t

th e civi l penalty sough t i nthi s actio ni s th e resul t o f factor s that

hav e bee n develope dove r

year s o f polic y makin g an dcas e adjudication . Th e decisio nwhethe r t o prosecut e aparticular

cas e i s base do narevie w o f th e evidenc e an drelevan t polic y an dlitigtio n considerations . Th e agenc y exercise s broa ddiscretio ni nbothth e initia l decisio nt o brin g alegal enforcemen t

action , an di n an y late r determinatio nt o compromis e o r settl e acas e base do n variou s considerations . Th e FAA' s discretio ni nthes e area s i s absolut e an dpresume dt o b e immun e fro mreview . Heckle r v . Cheney . 47 0 U.S . 821 , 83 1 (1985) .

1 1Interrogatory No . 20 :

Pleas e stat e th e attitud e o f th e Responden t

i nrespondin g t o th e allege dviolatio nan dth e natur e o f correctiv e actio n take n b y th e Responden t t o preven t

similar violation s i nth e future . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 20 : Objection . Complainan t object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t call s for th e productio n o f informatio n tha t

fall s outside th e scop e o f permissibl e discovery , includin g bu t not limite dt o th e exten t tha t th e Interrogatory call s for informatio ntha t

i s not relevan t t o th e subjec t

matte r o f th e proceedin g no r

coul di t b e construe da s bein g reasonabl y calculate dt o lea dt o th e discovery o f relevan t o r admissibl e evidence . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for

th e productio no f

informatio ntha t

i s withi nth e custod y o r

contro l o f

a thir dparty . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for productio n o f

informatio n protecte db y th e privileg e for deliberativ e agenc y process , attorne y work produc t doctrine , o r

any othe r applicabl e privilege . Notwithstandin g th e abov e objectio n th e Complainan t

state s tha t

th e civi l penalty sough t i nthi s actio ni s th e resul t o f factor s tha t

hav e bee n develope dove r

year s o f polic y makin g an dcas e adjudication . Th e decisio nwhethe r t o prosecut e aparticular

cas e i s basedo narevie w o f th e evidenc e an drelevan t polic y an dlitigtio n considerations . Th e agenc y exercise s broa ddiscretio ni nbothth e initia l decisio nt o brin g alegal enforcemen t

action , an di n an y late r determinatio nt o compromis e o r settl e acas e base do n variou s considerations . Th e FAA' s discretio ni nthes e area s i s absolut e an dpresume dt o b e immun e fro mreview . Heckle r v . Cheney . 47 0 U.S . 821 , 83 1 (1985) .

1 2Interrogatory No . 21 :

Pleas e stat e th e significanc e o r degre e o f

th e safet y ris k associate dwithth e acts o f Responden t durin g th e perio dJul y 9-16 , 200 8 tha t resulte di nth e filing o f

aCOMPLAIN T i nthi s action . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 21 : Objection . Complainan t object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t call s for th e productio n o f informatio n tha t

fall s outsid e th e scop e o f permissibl e discovery , includin g but not limite dt o th e exten t tha t th e Interrogatory call s for informatio ntha t

i s no t relevan t t o th e subjec t

matte r o f th e proceedin g no r

coul di t b e construe da s bein g reasonabl y calculate dt o lea dt o th e discovery o f relevan t o r admissibl e evidence . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t that i t purport s t o cal l for

th e productio no f

informatio ntha t

i s withi nth e custod y o r

contro l o f

a thir dparty . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for productio n o f

informatio nprotecte db y th e privileg e for deliberativ e agenc y process , attorne y wor k produc t doctrine , o r

an y othe r applicabl e privilege . Notwithstandin g th e abov e objectio n th e Complainan t

state s tha t

th e civi l penalty sough t i nthi s actio ni s th e resul t o f factor s tha t

hav e bee n develope dove r

year s o f polic y makin g an dcas e adjudication . Th e decisio nwhethe r t o prosecut e aparticular

cas e i s base do narevie w o f th e evidenc e an drelevan t polic y an dlitigtio n considerations . Th e agenc y exercise s broaddiscretio ni nbothth e initia l decisio nt o brin g alegal enforcemen t

action , an di n an y late r determinatio nt o compromis e o r settl e acas e basedo n variou s considerations . Th e FAA' s discretio ni nthes e area s i s absolut e an dpresume dt o b e immun e fro mreview . Heckle r v . Cheney . 47 0 U.S . 821 , 83 1 (1985) .

1 3Interrogatory No . 22 :

Pleas e stat e any aggravatin g factor s considere db y yo u i narrivin g at th e amoun t

o f th e propose d civi l penalty i n thi s action . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 22 : Objection . Complainan t object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t call s for th e productio n o f informatio n tha t

fall s outsid e th e scop e o f permissibl e discovery , includin g but not limite dt o th e exten t tha t th e Interrogatory call s for informatio ntha t

i s not relevan t t o th e subjec t

matte r o f th e proceedin g no r

coul di t b e construe da s bein g reasonabl y calculate dt o lea dt o th e discovery o f relevan t o r admissibl e evidence . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t that i t purport s t o cal l for

th e productio no f

informatio ntha t

i s withi nth e custod y o r

contro l o f

a thir dparty . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for productio n o f

informatio nprotecte db y th e privileg e for deliberativ e agenc y process , attorne y wor k produc t doctrine , o r

an y othe r applicabl e privilege . Notwithstandin g th e above objectio n th e Complainan t

state s tha t

th e civi l penalty sough t i nthi s actio ni s th e resul t o f factor s tha t

hav e bee n develope dove r

year s o f polic y makin g an dcas e adjudication . Th e decisio nwhethe r t o prosecut e aparticular

cas e i s base do narevie w o f th e evidenc e an drelevan t polic y an dlitigtio n considerations . Th e agenc y exercise s broa ddiscretio ni nbothth e initia l decisio nt o brin g alegal enforcemen t

action , an di n an y late r determinatio nt o compromis e o r settl e acas e basedo n variou s considerations . Th e FAA' s discretio ni nthes e area s i s absolut e an dpresume dt o b e immun e fro mreview . Heckle r v . Cheney . 47 0 U.S . 821 , 83 1 (1985) .

1 4Interrogatory No . 23 :

Pleas e stat e an y mitigatin g factor s considere db y yo u i narrivin g at th e amoun t

o f th e propose d civi l penalty i n thi s action . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 23 : Objection . Complainan t object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t call s fo r th e productio n o f informatio n tha t

fall s outside th e scop e o f permissibl e discovery , includin g but no t limite dt o th e exten t tha t th e Interrogatory call s fo r informatio ntha t

i s no t relevan t t o th e subjec t

matte r o f th e proceedin g no r

coul di t b e construe da s bein g reasonabl y calculate dt o lea dt o th e discovery o f relevan t o r admissibl e evidence . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for

th e productio no f

informatio ntha t

i s withi nth e custod y o r

contro l o f

a thir dparty . Notwithstandin g th e above objectio nth e Complainan t state s tha t

th e civi l penalty sough t i nthi s actio n i s th e resul t o f factor s tha t

hav e bee ndevelope dove r year s o f polic y makin g an dcas e adjudication . Th e decisio nwhethe r t o prosecut e aparticular cas e i s base do narevie w o f th e evidenc e an drelevan t polic y an dlitigtio nconsiderations . Th e agenc y exercise s broa d discretio ni n bothth e initia l decisio nt o brin g alegal enforcemen t action , an di nan y late r determinatio nt o compromis e o r settl e acas e basedo nvariou s considerations . Th e FAA' s discretio ni nthes e area s i s absolut e an dpresume dt o b e immun e fro mreview . Heckle r v . Cheney . 47 0 U.S . 821 , 83 1 (1985) . Interrogatory No . 24 : Pleas e stat e whethe r

o r no t th e acts o f

th e Responden t

durin g th e perio do f

Jul y 9-16 , 200 7 wer e th e produc t

o f asystemi c condition .

1 5Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 24 :

Objection . Complainan t object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t call s for th e productio n o f informatio n tha t

fall s outside th e scop e o f permissibl e discovery , includin g but not limite dt o th e exten t tha t th e Interrogatory call s for informatio ntha t

i s not relevan t t o th e subjec t

matte r o f th e proceedin g no r

coul di t b e construe da s bein g reasonabl y calculate dt o lea dt o th e discovery o f relevan t o r admissibl e evidence . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for

th e productio no f

informatio ntha t

i s withi nth e custod y o r

contro l o f

a thir dparty . Notwithstandin g th e above objectio nth e Complainan t state s tha t

th e civi l penalty sough t i n thi s actio n i s th e resul t o f factor s tha t

hav e bee ndevelope dove r year s o f polic y makin g an dcas e adjudication . Th e decisio nwhethe r t o prosecut e aparticular cas e i s base do narevie w o f th e evidenc e an drelevan t polic y an dlitigtio nconsiderations . Th e agenc y exercise s broa d discretio ni n bothth e initia l decisio nt o brin g alega l enforcemen t action , an di nany late r determinatio n t o compromis e o r settl e acas e base do nvariou s considerations . Th e FAA' s discretio ni n thes e area s i s absolut e an dpresume dt o b e immun e fro mreview . Heckle r v . Cheney . 47 0 U.S . 821 , 83 1 (1985) . Interrogatory No . 25 : Pleas e stat e whethe r

o r not th e Complainan t

considere dAdministrativ e Actio n(suc ha s a Wamn g Notic e o r

Lette r o f Correction ) t o resolv e th e subjec t matte r o f th e Complain t

an di f i t did , th e reason s wh y suc haresolutio n was not adopted . Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 25 : Objection . Complainan t object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t call s for th e productio n o f informatio n tha t

fall s outsid e th e scop e o f permissibl e discovery , includin g but no t limite dt o th e exten t tha t th e Interrogatory call s for informatio ntha t

i s not relevan t t o th e subjec t

matte r o f

1 6th e proceedin g no r coul di t b e construe da s bein g reasonabl y calculate dt o lea dt o th e discovery o f relevan t o r admissibl e evidence . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for

th e productio no f

informatio ntha t

i s withi nth e custod y o r

contro l o f

a thir dparty . Notwithstandin g th e above objectio nth e Complainan t state s tha t

th e civi l penalty sough t in thi s actio n i s th e resul t o f factor s tha t

hav e bee ndevelope dove r year s o f polic y makin g an dcas e adjudication . Th e decisio nwhethe r t o prosecut e aparticular cas e i s base do narevie w o f th e evidenc e an drelevan t polic y an dlitigtio nconsiderations . Th e agenc y exercise s broa d discretio n i n bothth e initia l decisio nt o brin g alegal enforcemen t action , an di nany late r determinatio n t o compromis e o r settl e acas e base do nvariou s considerations . Th e FAA' s discretio n i nthes e area s i s absolut e an dpresume dt o b e immun e fro mreview . Heckle r v . Cheney . 47 0 U.S . 821 , 83 1 (1985) . Interrogatory No . 26 : Pleas e stat e whethe r

o r no t th e Complainan t

considere dth e financial healtho f th e Responden t durin g 2007 , whe n th e event s tha t gav e ris e t o th e Complain t i nthi s actio noccurred. Respons e t o Interrogatory No . 26 : Objection . Complainan t object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t call s for th e productio n o f informatio n that

fall s outsid e th e scop e o f permissibl e discovery , includin g but not limite dt o th e exten t tha t th e Interrogatory call s for informatio ntha t

i s not relevan t t o th e subjec t

matte r o f th e proceedin g no r

coul di t b e construe da s bein g reasonabl y calculate dt o lea dt o th e discovery o f relevan t o r admissibl e evidence . Complainan t als o object s t o th e Interrogatory t o th e exten t tha t i t purport s t o cal l for

th e productio no f

informatio ntha t

i s withi nth e custod y o r

contro l o f

a thir dparty . Notwithstandin g th e abov e objectio nth e Complainan t state s tha t

th e civi l penalty sough t i nthi s actio n i s th e resul t o f factor s tha t

hav e bee ndevelope dove r year s o f polic y makin g

1 7an dcas e adjudication . Th e decisio nwhethe r t o prosecut e aparticular cas e i s base do narevie w o f th e evidenc e an drelevan t polic y an dlitigtio nconsiderations . Th e agenc y exercise s broa d discretio ni n bothth e initia l decisio nt o brin g alegal enforcemen t action , an di nany late r determinatio n t o compromis e o r settl e acas e base do nvariou s considerations . Th e FAA' s discretio n i nthes e area s i s absolut e an dpresume dt o b e immun e fro mreview . Heckle r v . Cheney . 47 0 U.S . 821 , 83 1 (1985) . REQUEST S FO RPRODUCTIO N Reques t No . 1 : Copie s o f

thos e document s identifie db y Complainan t i nComplainant' s response s t o interrogatorie s 9 an d10 . Respons e t o Reques t

No . 1 : Th e Complainan t

ha s provide ddocument s responsiv e t o thi s reques t withit s Prehearin g Submission s filedJun e 1 , 201 0 an dwithth e productio no f th e releasabl e portion s o f th e Enforcemen t

Investigativ e Report

provide dNovembe r

13 , 2008 . Reques t No . 2 : Copie s o f al l document s containin g statement s o f person s who mComplainan t intend s t o cal l a s a witnes s i n thi s matte r

concernin g th e action s o f th e Responden t

durin g th e perio dJul y 9-16 , 200 8 tha t relate s t o subjec t

matte r o f th e Complain t

i nthi s matter , prepare dat tha t tim e o r at an y tim e since . Respons e t o Reques t

No . 2 : Th e Complainan t

ha s provide ddocument s responsiv e t o thi s reques t withit s Prehearin g Submission s filedJun e 1 , 201 0 an dwithth e productio no f th e releasabl e portion s o f th e Enforcemen t

Investigativ e Repor t

provide dNovembe r

13 , 2008 . Th e Complainan t note s that

i t

1 8doe s not hav e any statement s fro mInspecto r Frish e concernin g th e underlyin g fact s o f thi s matter . Reques t No . 3 : Copie s o f

any an dal l document s i nComplainant' s possession , includin g but not limite dt o correspondence , memoranda , notes , an delectroni c mai l messages , concernin g th e action s o f Responden t

durin g th e perio dJul y 9-16 , 200 8 tha t relate s t o th e subjec t

matte r o f th e Complain t i n thi s matter . Respons e t o Reques t

No . 3 : Th e Complainan t

ha s provide ddocument s responsiv e t o thi s reques t withit s Prehearin g Submission s filedJun e 1 , 201 0 an dwithth e productio no f th e releasabl e portion s o f th e Enforcemen t

Investigativ e Report

provide dNovembe r

13 , 2008 . REQUEST S FO RADMISSIO N 1 . Without

knowledg e t o admit

o r deny . 2 . Without

knowledg e t o admit

o r deny . 3 . Deny . Respectfull y submitte dthi s 2"* * day o f Jun e 2010 . ROBER T B . DIXO N Attorne y Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l

1 9CERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t acop y o f

th e foregoin g Respons e t o Respondent' s Discovery Reques t was maile db y Federa l Expres s to : Stephe n J . Kolski , Esq . Executiv e Vic e Presiden t Corporat e Affair s AirTra n Airways , Inc . 995 5 AirTra n Blvd . Orlando , F

L3282 7 Th e Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benki n DOT , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 Roo m541 1 40 0 SeventhStreet , S W Washington , D C 2059 0 Hearin g Docke t

(Origina l + 1 copy ) FAA , AGC-400 , Roo m201 4 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1



### JU N- 2 

### 201 0 Date d

2 0