iRTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION f^r*-/^r-fv/3—- ^ 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS H fc W11 V III O 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

AIR IRAN AIRWAYS, 

Respondent. 

INC. 

JUN - 3 2010 

HEAnlNG DOCKET 

FAA Docket No. CP10SO0002 

Judge Benkin 

AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUEST TO 

COMPLAINANT 

The Agency, by the undersigned counsel, and pursuant to 14 C.F.R 13.220, and Rules 33 

and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the hereby files its Responses to Respondent's 

Interrogatories and Request for Production as follows: 

OBJECTIONS 

1. Complainant objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to call for production of 

documents and information protected by the privilege for deliberative agency process, 

attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. 

2. Complainant objects to the Requests to the extent they call for the production of documents 

and information in the possession of third parties not within the control of the FAA. 

3. Complainant objects to the Requests to the extent they call for the production of documents 

and information that fall outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited 

to the extent that the Requests call for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of 
the proceeding nor could be construed as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of relevant or admissible evidence. 

INTERROGATORIES 

Interrogatory No. 1: 

State the name of each person answering or assisting in answereing each of the following 

discovery requests, their employer and title or position including their business mailing address, 

and the discovery request they answered or assisted in answering. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 1: 

The undersigned attorney prepared the responses to the Interrogatories. 

Interrogatory No. 2: 

State the name, business address, telephone number, place of employment and job title of any 

preson who has, claims to have or whom you believe may have knowledge or information 

pertaining to any fact or sanction alleged in the pleadings (as defined in §13.202 of the Rules of 

Practice and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7(a)) filed in this action, or any fact or sanction 

underlying the subject matter of this action. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 2: 

1. Dickie Long 

Aviation Safety Inspector Operations Staff Specialist 

Southern Region - Flight Standards Division, ASO-230 

FAA Southern Regional Office 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

(404) 305-6073 

2. Thomas T. Frishe 

Air Carrier Operations Specialist 

Southern Region - Flight Standards Division, ASO-230 

FAA Southern Regional Office 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

(404) 305-6106 
Kathie Dorick 

Aviation Safety Inspector Cabin Safety 

Airtran CMO 

FAA Delta Airlines CMO-27 

107 Charles W. Grant Pkwy 

Hapeville, GA 30354 

(404)474-5841 

Interrogatory No. 3: 

State the specific nature and substance of the knowledge that you believe the person(s) identified 

in your response to interrogatory No. 2 may have. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 3: 

The individuals indentified in Interrogatory No. 2 have knowledge of the facts leading to the 

allegations brought by Complainant. The individuals also have knowledge of the FAA policy 

and procedures for determining the appropriate amount of civil penalty for violations of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations charged, including whether to consider any mitigating or 

aggravating factors. 

Interrogatory No. 4: 

State the name, occupation, and business address of each person Complainant intends to call as a 

non-expert witness in this proceeding. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 4: 

1. Thomas T. Frishe 

Air Carrier Operations Specialist 

Southern Region - Flight Standards Division, ASO-230 

FAA Southern Regional Office 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

(404) 305-6106 
Interrogatory No. 5: 

State the subject matter upon which each intended non expert witness is expected to testify and 

the facts composing the testimony of each intended non expert witness. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 5: 

See Complainant's Response to Prehearing Order served June 1, 2010. 

Interrogatory No. 6: 

If the Complainant intends to call an expert witness at the hearing, state the witness' name, 

occupation, and business address as well as the qualifications of this witness that Complainant 

intends to rely upon to permit this intended witness to offer expert opinion testimony. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 6: 

The Complainant does not intend to call an expert witness. 

Interrogatory No. 7: 

State the subject matter upon which intended expert witness is expected to testify and the facts 

composing the testimony of each intended expert witness as well as providing in detail the 

substance of the opinions to be provided by each person whom you may use as an expert witness 

at the hearing. 

Reponse to Interrogatory No. 7: 

The Complainant does not intend to call an expert witness. 

Interrogatory No. 8: 

Please state the factors relied upon, and the weight given to each, to arrive at the proposed civil 

penalty of $15,000 in this action, and an explanation of how you computed each factor in arriving 

at the assessed civil penalty. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 8: 

See Complainant's Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative hearing on 

saction only filed April 30, 2010. 
Interrogatory No. 9: 

Please identify each docimient (including electronically stored information) pertaining to each 

factor stated in your response to interrogatory No. 8 above. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 9: 

See Complainant's Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative hearing on 

saction only filed April 30, 2010. 

Interrogatory No. 10: 

Please identify each document you intend to proffer into evidence at the hearing. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 10: 

See Complainant's Prehearing Submissions filed June 1, 2010. 

Interrogatory No. 11: 

For the period prior to July 9-16, 2007, state the number of instances where the Respondent was 

found to have not complied with Part 121.467(b)(13) of the Federal Aviation Regulations, the 

dates of those events, and the sanctions imposed. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 11: 

Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production 

of information that falls outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited to 

the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of 

the proceeding nor could it be construed as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of relevant or admissible evidence. 
Interrogatory No. 12: 

For the period since July 9-16, 2007, and continuing through the current date, state the number of 

instances where the Respondent was found, or was alleged to have not complied with Part 

121.467(b)(13) of the Federal Aviation Regulations, the dates of those events, and the sanctions 

imposed or pending. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 12: 

Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production 

of information that falls outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited to 

the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of 

the proceeding nor could it be construed as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of relevant or admissible evidence. 

Interrogatory No. 13: 

For the period prior to July 9-16, 2007, state the number of instances where the Respondent was 

found to have not complied with Part 121.467 (Flight Attendant Duty Period Limitations and 

Rest Requirements), excluding (b)(13) of the Federal Aviation Regulations, the dates of those 

events, and the sanctions imposed. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 13: 

Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production 

of information that falls outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited to 

the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of 

the proceeding nor could it be construed as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of relevant or admissible evidence. 
Interrogatory No. 14: 

For the period since July 9-16, 2007, and continuing through the current date, state the number of 

instances where the Respondent was found, or was alleged, to have not complied with any 

provision contained in Part 121.467 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (Flight Attendant Duty 

Period Limitations and Rest Requirements), excluding (b)(13), the dates of those events and the 

sanctions imposed or pending. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 14: 

Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production 

of information that falls outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited to 

the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of 

the proceeding nor could it be construed as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of relevant or admissible evidence. 

Interrogatory No. 15: 

Please state whether or not the alleged violation set forth in the Complaint in this action was 

inadvertent. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 15: 

Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production 

of information that falls outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited to 

the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of 

the proceeding nor could it be construed as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of relevant or admissible evidence. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent 

that it purports to call for the production of information that is within the custody or control of a 

third party. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it purports to call for 

production of information protected by the privilege for deliberative agency process, attorney 

work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Notwithstanding the above objection the 
Complainant states that the civil penalty sought in this action is the result of factors that have 

been developed over years of policy making and case adjudication. The decision whether to 

prosecute a particular case is based on a review of the evidence and relevant policy and litigtion 

considerations. The agency exercises broad discretion in both the initial decision to bring a legal 

enforcement action, and in any later determination to compromise or settle a case based on 

various considerations. The FAA's discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be 

immune from review. Heckler v. Cheney. 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

Interrogatory No. 16: 

Please state whether or not the alleged violation set forth in the Complaint in this action was 

deliberate. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 16: 

Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production 

of information that falls outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited to 

the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of 

the proceeding nor could it be construed as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of relevant or admissible evidence. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent 

that it purports to call for the production of information that is within the custody or control of a 

third party. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it purports to call for 

production of information protected by the privilege for deliberative agency process, attorney 

work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Notwithstanding the above objection the 

Complainant states that the civil penalty sought in this action is the result of factors that have 

been developed over years of policy making and case adjudication. The decision whether to 

prosecute a particular case is based on a review of the evidence and relevant policy and litigtion 

8 
considerations. The agency exercises broad discretion in both the initial decision to bring a legal 

enforcement action, and in any later determination to compromise or settle a case based on 

various considerations. The FAA's discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be 

immune from review. Heckler v. Cheney. 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

Interrogatory No. 17: 

Please state whether or not the alleged violation set forth in the Complaint was the result of gross 

negligence. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 17: 

Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production 

of information that falls outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited to 

the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of 

the proceeding nor could be construed as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

relevant or admissible evidence. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that 

it purports to call for the production of information that is within the custody or control of a third 

party. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it purports to call for 

production of information protected by the privilege for deliberative agency process, attorney 

work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Notwithstanding the above objection the 

Complainant states that the civil penalty sought in this action is the result of factors that have 

been developed over years of policy making and case adjudication. The decision whether to 

prosecute a particular case is based on a review of the evidence and relevant policy and litigtion 

considerations. The agency exercises broad discretion in both the initial decision to bring a legal 

enforcement action, and in any later determination to compromise or settle a case based on 
various considerations. The FAA's discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be 

immune from review. Heckler v. Cheney. 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

Interrogatory No. 18: 

Please state whether or not the alleged violation set forth in the Complaint amounted to a 

substantial disregard for safety. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 18: 

Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production 

of information that falls outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited to 

the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of 

the proceeding nor could it be construed as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of relevant or admissible evidence. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent 

that it purports to call for the production of information that is within the custody or control of a 

third party. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it purports to call for 

production of information protected by the privilege for deliberative agency process, attorney 

work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Notwithstanding the above objection the 

Complainant states that the civil penalty sought in this action is the result of factors that have 

been developed over years of policy making and case adjudication. The decision whether to 

prosecute a particular case is based on a review of the evidence and relevant policy and litigtion 

considerations. The agency exercises broad discretion in both the initial decision to bring a legal 

enforcement action, and in any later determination to compromise or settle a case based on 

various considerations. The FAA's discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be 

immune fi-om review. Heckler v. Cheney. 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

10 
Interrogatory No. 19: 

Please state whether or not the compliance history of the Respondent with respect to Part 

121.467(b)(13) of the Federal Aviation Regulations was considered in the assessment of the 

proposed civil penalty in this action and whether or not this history resulted in an increased or 

mitigated sanction or civil penalty. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 19: 

Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production 

of information that falls outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited to 

the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of 

the proceeding nor could it be construed as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of relevant or admissible evidence. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent 

that it purports to call for the production of information that is within the custody or control of a 

third party. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it purports to call for 

production of information protected by the privilege for deliberative agency process, attorney 

work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Notwithstanding the above objection the 

Complainant states that the civil penalty sought in this action is the result of factors that have 

been developed over years of policy making and case adjudication. The decision whether to 

prosecute a particular case is based on a review of the evidence and relevant policy and litigtion 

considerations. The agency exercises broad discretion in both the initial decision to bring a legal 

enforcement action, and in any later determination to compromise or settle a case based on 

various considerations. The FAA's discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be 

immune from review. Heckler v. Cheney. 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

11 
Interrogatory No. 20: 

Please state the attitude of the Respondent in responding to the alleged violation and the nature of 

corrective action taken by the Respondent to prevent similar violations in the future. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 20: 

Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production 

of information that falls outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited to 

the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of 

the proceeding nor could it be construed as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of relevant or admissible evidence. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent 

that it purports to call for the production of information that is within the custody or control of a 

third party. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it purports to call for 

production of information protected by the privilege for deliberative agency process, attorney 

work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Notwithstanding the above objection the 

Complainant states that the civil penalty sought in this action is the result of factors that have 

been developed over years of policy making and case adjudication. The decision whether to 

prosecute a particular case is based on a review of the evidence and relevant policy and litigtion 

considerations. The agency exercises broad discretion in both the initial decision to bring a legal 

enforcement action, and in any later determination to compromise or settle a case based on 

various considerations. The FAA's discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be 

immune from review. Heckler v. Cheney. 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

12 
Interrogatory No. 21: 

Please state the significance or degree of the safety risk associated with the acts of Respondent 

during the period July 9-16, 2008 that resulted in the filing of a COMPLAINT in this action. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 21: 

Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production 

of information that falls outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited to 

the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of 

the proceeding nor could it be construed as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of relevant or admissible evidence. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent 

that it purports to call for the production of information that is within the custody or control of a 

third party. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it purports to call for 

production of information protected by the privilege for deliberative agency process, attorney 

work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Notwithstanding the above objection the 

Complainant states that the civil penalty sought in this action is the result of factors that have 

been developed over years of policy making and case adjudication. The decision whether to 

prosecute a particular case is based on a review of the evidence and relevant policy and litigtion 

considerations. The agency exercises broad discretion in both the initial decision to bring a legal 

enforcement action, and in any later determination to compromise or settle a case based on 

various considerations. The FAA's discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be 

immune from review. Heckler v. Cheney. 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

13 
Interrogatory No. 22: 

Please state any aggravating factors considered by you in arriving at the amount of the proposed 

civil penalty in this action. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 22: 

Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production 

of information that falls outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited to 

the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of 

the proceeding nor could it be construed as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of relevant or admissible evidence. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent 

that it purports to call for the production of information that is within the custody or control of a 

third party. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it purports to call for 

production of information protected by the privilege for deliberative agency process, attorney 

work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Notwithstanding the above objection the 

Complainant states that the civil penalty sought in this action is the result of factors that have 

been developed over years of policy making and case adjudication. The decision whether to 

prosecute a particular case is based on a review of the evidence and relevant policy and litigtion 

considerations. The agency exercises broad discretion in both the initial decision to bring a legal 

enforcement action, and in any later determination to compromise or settle a case based on 

various considerations. The FAA's discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be 

immune from review. Heckler v. Cheney. 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

14 
Interrogatory No. 23: 

Please state any mitigating factors considered by you in arriving at the amount of the proposed 

civil penalty in this action. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 23: 

Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production 

of information that falls outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited to 

the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of 

the proceeding nor could it be construed as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of relevant or admissible evidence. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent 

that it purports to call for the production of information that is within the custody or control of a 

third party. Notwithstanding the above objection the Complainant states that the civil penalty 

sought in this action is the result of factors that have been developed over years of policy making 

and case adjudication. The decision whether to prosecute a particular case is based on a review 

of the evidence and relevant policy and litigtion considerations. The agency exercises broad 

discretion in both the initial decision to bring a legal enforcement action, and in any later 

determination to compromise or settle a case based on various considerations. The FAA's 

discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be immune from review. Heckler v. 

Cheney. 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

Interrogatory No. 24: 

Please state whether or not the acts of the Respondent during the period of July 9-16, 2007 were 

the product of a systemic condition. 

15 
Response to Interrogatory No. 24: 

Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production 

of information that falls outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited to 

the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of 

the proceeding nor could it be construed as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of relevant or admissible evidence. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent 

that it purports to call for the production of information that is within the custody or control of a 

third party. Notwithstanding the above objection the Complainant states that the civil penalty 

sought in this action is the result of factors that have been developed over years of policy making 

and case adjudication. The decision whether to prosecute a particular case is based on a review 

of the evidence and relevant policy and litigtion considerations. The agency exercises broad 

discretion in both the initial decision to bring a legal enforcement action, and in any later 

determination to compromise or settle a case based on various considerations. The FAA's 

discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be immune from review. Heckler v. 

Cheney. 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

Interrogatory No. 25: 

Please state whether or not the Complainant considered Administrative Action (such as a 

Wamng Notice or Letter of Correction) to resolve the subject matter of the Complaint and if it 

did, the reasons why such a resolution was not adopted. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 25: 

Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production 

of information that falls outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited to 

the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of 

16 
the proceeding nor could it be construed as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of relevant or admissible evidence. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent 

that it purports to call for the production of information that is within the custody or control of a 

third party. Notwithstanding the above objection the Complainant states that the civil penalty 

sought in this action is the result of factors that have been developed over years of policy making 

and case adjudication. The decision whether to prosecute a particular case is based on a review 

of the evidence and relevant policy and litigtion considerations. The agency exercises broad 

discretion in both the initial decision to bring a legal enforcement action, and in any later 

determination to compromise or settle a case based on various considerations. The FAA's 

discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be immune from review. Heckler v. 

Cheney. 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

Interrogatory No. 26: 

Please state whether or not the Complainant considered the financial health of the Respondent 

during 2007, when the events that gave rise to the Complaint in this action occurred. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 26: 

Objection. Complainant objects to the Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production 

of information that falls outside the scope of permissible discovery, including but not limited to 

the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of 

the proceeding nor could it be construed as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of relevant or admissible evidence. Complainant also objects to the Interrogatory to the extent 

that it purports to call for the production of information that is within the custody or control of a 

third party. Notwithstanding the above objection the Complainant states that the civil penalty 

sought in this action is the result of factors that have been developed over years of policy making 

17 
and case adjudication. The decision whether to prosecute a particular case is based on a review 

of the evidence and relevant policy and litigtion considerations. The agency exercises broad 

discretion in both the initial decision to bring a legal enforcement action, and in any later 

determination to compromise or settle a case based on various considerations. The FAA's 

discretion in these areas is absolute and presumed to be immune from review. Heckler v. 

Cheney. 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

Request No. 1: 

Copies of those documents identified by Complainant in Complainant's responses to 

interrogatories 9 and 10. 

Response to Request No. 1: 

The Complainant has provided documents responsive to this request with its Prehearing 

Submissions filed June 1, 2010 and with the production of the releasable portions of the 

Enforcement Investigative Report provided November 13, 2008. 

Request No. 2: 

Copies of all documents containing statements of persons whom Complainant intends to call as a 

witness in this matter concerning the actions of the Respondent during the period July 9-16, 2008 

that relates to subject matter of the Complaint in this matter, prepared at that time or at any time 

since. 

Response to Request No. 2: 

The Complainant has provided documents responsive to this request with its Prehearing 

Submissions filed June 1, 2010 and with the production of the releasable portions of the 

Enforcement Investigative Report provided November 13, 2008. The Complainant notes that it 

18 
does not have any statements from Inspector Frishe concerning the underlying facts of this 

matter. 

Request No. 3: 

Copies of any and all documents in Complainant's possession, including but not limited to 

correspondence, memoranda, notes, and electronic mail messages, concerning the actions of 

Respondent during the period July 9-16, 2008 that relates to the subject matter of the Complaint 

in this matter. 

Response to Request No. 3: 

The Complainant has provided documents responsive to this request with its Prehearing 

Submissions filed June 1, 2010 and with the production of the releasable portions of the 

Enforcement Investigative Report provided November 13, 2008. 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 

1. Without knowledge to admit or deny. 

2. Without knowledge to admit or deny. 

3. Deny. 

Respectfully submitted this 2"** day of June 2010. 

ROBERT B. DIXON 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

19 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Respondent's Discovery Request was 

mailed by Federal Express to: 

Stephen J. Kolski, Esq. 

Executive Vice President Corporate Affairs 

AirTran Airways, Inc. 

9955 AirTran Blvd. 

Orlando, FL 32827 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin 

DOT, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

Room 5411 

400 Seventh Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

Hearing Docket (Original + 1 copy) 

FAA, AGC-400, Room 2014 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

JUN - 2 2010 

Dated 

20