IJ.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - » 1^ * ^ ^ 

FEDERAL AVIATIOIN ADMINISTRATION ^ 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS i'*^ " 2 /i; ^ 

WASHINGTON, D.C. H f -^'^^^^ ^- •-• 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Complainant, 

CITY OF BRIDGEPORT CONNECTICUT 

Respondent. 

Docket No. CP09NE0001 

Administrative Law Judge 

Honorable Isaac D. Benkin 

May 21, 2010 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

and OBJECTOIN TO MOTION FOR DECISION 

The respondent, City of Bridgeport (City), hereby respectfully moves for 

reconsideration of the Court's April 29, 2010 ruling on Complainant's Motion to Compel 

and objects to Complainant's Motion for Decision dated May 11, 2010. Respondent 

represents that notwithstanding attempts, it wase unable to speak to contact counsel 

for Complainant and is unable to state whether ther is consent to this motion and 

objection. 

This is a mater in which the court has been asked to review the validity of 

Complainant's allegations that the City failed to comply with provisions of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations applicable to airport operators. The Complainant, Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), is seeking to assess a civil penalty of $77,000 against the City. 

I. Background/Procedural History 

By way of background, this matter is but one of several matters involving the City, 

FAA and in some cases, other parties. For obvious safety reasons, the FAA has 

determined that the main runway at Bridgeport Airport, which is in need of certain repairs, 

requires an extended safety zone in order to accommodate air traffic, including section 
T. Anastasi due to our office's setup, not any one attorney on staff who has extensive 

Federal administrative law experience with FAA regulatory issues. The undersigned filed 

an appearance for the City, participated in the preparation of an answer and had some 

discussions with Complainant's counsel. Another attorney in the office who, without 

previous notice, became unavailable, was assigned to conduct discovery. A third 

attorney was responsible for settlement discussions with the FAA. A fourth attorney is 

defending with the FAA, the Town of Stratford's pending litigation. Moreover, although 

Complainant's pleadings and correspondence came to the undersigned, notices from the 

Court were only sent to the city attorney, Mark Anastasi. 

After issue was joined, counsel for the Complainant served interrogatories and 

requests for production on the respondent. Respondent began compilation of the 

requested information, but responses did not go out, triggering the FAA to file a Motion 

to Compel. On April 15, 2010 the Court issued an order directing the City to comply or 

explain why it had not done so. This was not received by the City Attorney, and not the 

The deadline for the Respondent's reply to the order was set at April 26, 2010. 

However, based upon adjudications or other orders (including the April 29, 2010 order of 

sanctions and the April 15, 2010 order scheduling the May 27**^ pre-hearing conference) 

all notices were to the City Attorney and not to the undersigned or the attorney assigned 

the preparation of the responses. On April 29, 2010 the court issued its order imposing 

sanctions for failure to comply. 

The order precludes the Respondent from introducing any evidence or sponsoring 

any witnesses at the hearing on the subject of liability for a civil penalty by reason of the 

alleged FAA violations with which it is charged. The order further limits the 
Respondent's participation to cross-examination of the witness or witnesses sponsored 

by the Complainant and the presentation of evidence bearing solely upon the issue of 

the amount of civil penalty to be assessed. 

Respondent respectfully moves for reconsideration of it ruling. 

II. Argument/Discussion 

Respondent sincerely apologizes to the Court, Counsel for the Complainant and 

Complainant for any inconvenience it may have caused due to the untimely compliance 

with discovery deadlines. Respondent recognizes that its failure to comply is entirely 

due to Respondent's acts or omissions and Respondent accepts full responsibility. 

Respondent in no way acted intentionally or maliciously and is embarrassed by what 

has occurred. Clearly, City attorney acknowledges that, in hindsight, that in such an 

instance where he involved multiple members of his staff in order to ensure effective 

defense of this matter, his own failure to objectively coordinate staff ultimately caused 

the opposite result. Unfortunately, the absence of undersigned appearing in the Court's 

certification list negated that particular avenue for a final safeguard and Respondent 

failed to meet the Court's April 26, 2010 deadline. Nevertheless, Respondent has 

acknowledged its full responsibility and is respectfully requesting equitable relief.. 

Immediately upon learning (via the Court's April 29, 2010 order of Sanctions) 

Respondent redoubled it efforts to complete discovery compliance has, this date, 

forwarded complete compliance with Complainant's Interrogatories and Request for 

Production. 

The financial impact of an adverse decision in this matter would obviously 

adversely impact the already overburdened taxpayers of the City of Bridgeport 
inasmuch as the City if self insured (aks uninsured). If Complainant contends prejudice 

any kind, the respondent is willing to consent to a continuance for Complainant's further 

review and preparation of its case. The overriding policy of our system supports courts 

adjudicating matters on their merits. 

Respondent does believe that it has good and valid defenses to liability on the 

issue of Wildlife Management (VII, Paragraphs 23. - 24; Paragraph 26(p) and 

damage/penalty calculations as to all claims. Moreover, Respondent believes and 

contends that has good and valid defenses based upon the additional factors as set 

forth in response to Respondent's Interrogatory Responses^ 6(a), 6(b) and 6(c). 

^ 6. Please provide a brief summary of all proposed affirmative defenses and the 

factual and legal basis for each. 

Answer: 

a. Although Bridgeport is not presently utilizing its Section 139 Certificate, it contemplates possibly 

bringing in Section 139 air carriers upon the reconstruction, rehabilitation, renovation completion of 

runways, safety zones and safety areas with previously requested and approved Federal grant monies. 

The cost of the reconstruction and associated highway relocation is prohitjitive to the City. The runway 

and, upon information and belief, safety zone issues cited in the complaint are scheduled to be corrected 

utilizing the anticipated grant monies once the safety zone litigation with the Town of Stratford is resolved. 

Until that time, no grant monies for the Federal Government will be forthcoming. Inasmuch as no Section 

139 commercial carrier was using the airport at the time, the violations, which were beyond the control of 

Bridgeport, did not present a safety hazard to any such commercial carriers. Accordingly, the proposed 

penalty is arbitrary and excessive. 

b. With the exception of the runway and safety area structural conditions, and the wildlife issues, which 

are disputed by the City, the remaining deficiencies as cited by the FAA were promptly attended to and 

corrected by the City. In light of the fact that there no Section 139 carriers utilizing the airport and the said 

corrected deficiencies were relatively minor, the proposed penalties are arbitrary and excessive. 

c. Before March, 2007 similar types of deficiencies were handled by the FAA by Letter of Correction and 

were always promptly corrected by the airport. The FAA was aware of the structural issues with the 

runways and safety areas as well as the ongoing dispute with Stratford and Bridgeport's aggressive 

pursuit of federal grant monies for renovations. The FAA appears to be using this litigation to coerce the 

voluntary surrender or involuntary termination of the Section 139 Certificate. In view of the constraints on 

the City's ability to replace the deteriorating runway at this time, for reasons wholly beyond the City's 

control, if would be unjust to enforce monetary sanctions in onerous amount of $77,000.00 for violations 

of this nature, character, limited duration and extent. 
III. Conclusion/Claim for Relief 

For all of the above reasons the Respondent respectfully requests that the court 

grant the following the following relief: 

1. An Order permitting the Respondent to introduce evidence and/or to sponsor 

any witnesses at the hearing on the subject of liability for a civil penalty by 

reason of the alleged FAA violations with which it is charged. 

2. An order permitting the Respondent's participation to cross-examination of 

the witness or witnesses sponsored by the Complainant and the presentation 

of evidence bearing upon all issues, including liability, mitigation, and the 

amount of civil penalty to be assessed, if any, including the defenses 

asserted in Interrogatory responses 6(a), 6(b) and 6(c). 

3. An order denying Complainant's Motion for Decision dated May 11, 2010. 

THE RESPONDENT, 

CITY OF BRIDGEPORT 

BY_ 

Richai(d G. Kascalfe, Jr. 

AssocweCity Attorney 

Office of tTiS'City Attorney 

999 Broad Street, 2"^^ Floor 

Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604-4328 

Telephone (203) 576- 7647 

Facsimile (203) 576-8252 
richard.kascak@bridgeportct.gov 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing was faxed and sent via postage 

prepaid first class mail, this 21t day of May, 2010 to: 

ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El 2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Tel: (202)366-2139 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 

ONE COPY 

John R. Donnelly, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ANE-7 

New England Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

12 New England Executive Park 

Burlington, MA 01803-5299 

Tel: 781-238-7043 

Fax: 781-238-7055