IJ.S
. DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N - » 1^ * ^ ^ FEDERA L AVIATIOI N ADMINISTRATIO N ^

OFFIC E O F HEARING S i'* ^ " 2 /i; ^ WASHINGTON , D.C
. H f-^'^^^ ^ ^ - •- • FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N Complainant ,
CITYO F BRIDGEPOR TCONNECTICU T Respondent . Docke t No . CP09NE000 1 Administrativ e La wJudg e Honorabl e Isaa cD . Benki n May21 , 201 0 MOTIO N FO R RECONSIDERATIO N an d OBJECTOI N T O MOTIO N FO R DECISIO N Th e respondent , Cit yo fBridgeport (City) , hereb yrespectfull ymove s fo r reconsideratio n o fth e Court' s Apri l 29 , 201 0 rulin g o n Complainant' s Motio n t o Compe l an d object s t o Complainant' s Motio n fo rDecisio n date d Ma y11 , 2010 . Responden t represent s tha t notwithstandin g attempts , i t was e unabl e t o spea k t o contac t counse l fo rComplainan t an d i s unabl e t o stat e whethe rthe ri s consen t t o thi s motio n an d objection . Thi s i s a mate ri n whic h th e court ha s bee n aske d t o revie wth e validit yo f Complainant' s allegation s tha t th e Cit yfaile d t o compl ywit h provision s o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s applicabl e t o airport operators . Th e Complainant , Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA) , i s seekin g t o asses s a civi l penalt yo f$77,00 0 agains t th e City
. I . Background/Procedura l Histor y Bywa yo fbackground , thi s matte ri s bu t on e o fsevera l matter s involvin g th e City , FA Aan d i n som e cases , othe rparties . Fo robviou s safet yreasons , th e FAAha s determine d tha t th e mai n runwa ya t Bridgeport Airport , whic h i s i n nee d o fcertai n repairs , require s a n extende d safet yzon e i n orde rt o accommodat e ai rtraffic , includin g sectio nT . Anastas i du e t o ou roffice' s setup , no t an yon e attorne yo n staf fwh o ha s extensiv e

Federa l administrativ e la wexperienc e wit h FAAregulator yissues . Th e undersigne d file d a n appearanc e fo rth e City , participate d i n th e preparatio n o f a n answe ran d ha d som e discussion s wit h Complainant' s counsel . Anothe rattorne yi n th e offic e who , withou t previou s notice , becam e unavailable , was assigne d t o conduc t discovery . Athir d attorne ywa s responsibl e fo rsettlemen t discussion s wit h th e FAA . Afourt h attorne yi s defendin g wit h th e FAA , th e Tow n o fStratford' s pendin g litigation . Moreover , althoug h Complainant' s pleading s an d correspondenc e cam e t o th e undersigned , notice s fro m th e Cour t wer e onl ysen t t o th e cit yattorney , Mar k Anastasi . Afte rissu e wa s joined , counse l fo rth e Complainan t serve d interrogatorie s an d request s fo rproduction o n th e respondent . Responden t bega n compilatio n o fth e requeste d information , bu t response s di d no t g o out , triggerin g th e FAAt o fil e a Motio n t o Compel
. O n Apri l 15 , 201 0 th e Court issue d a n orde rdirectin g th e Cit yt o compl yo r explai n wh yi t ha d no t don e so . Thi s was no t receive d b yth e Cit yAttorney , an d no t th e Th e deadlin e fo rth e Respondent' s repl yt o th e orde rwa s se t a t Apri l 26 , 2010 . However , base d upo n adjudication s o rothe rorder s (includin g th e Apri l 29 , 201 0 orde ro f sanction s an d th e Apri l 15 , 201 0 orde rschedulin g th e Ma y27** ^ pre-hearin g conference ) al l notice s wer e t o th e Cit yAttorne yan d no t t o th e undersigne d o rth e attorne yassigne d th e preparatio n o fth e responses . O n Apri l 29 , 201 0 th e court issue d it s orde rimposin g sanction s fo rfailur e t o comply . Th e orde rpreclude s th e Responden t fro m introducin g an yevidence o rsponsorin g an ywitnesse s a t th e hearin g o n th e subjec t o fliabilit yfo ra civi l penalt yb yreaso n o f th e allege d FA

Aviolation s wit h whic h i t i s charged . Th e orde rfurthe rlimit s th eRespondent' s participatio n t o cross-examinatio n o fth e witnes s o rwitnesse s sponsore d

b yth e Complainan t an d th e presentatio n o fevidenc e bearin g solel yupo n th e issu e o f th e amoun t o fcivi l penalt yt o b e assessed . Responden t respectfull ymove s fo rreconsideratio n o fi t ruling . II . Argument/Discussio n Responden t sincerel yapologize s t o th e Court , Counse l fo rth e Complainan t an d Complainan t fo ran yinconvenienc e i t ma yhav e cause d du e t o th e untimel ycomplianc e wit h discoverydeadlines . Responden t recognize s tha t it s failur e t o compl yi s entirel y du e t o Respondent' s act s o romission s an d Responden t accept s ful l responsibility . Responden t i n n o wa yacte d intentionall yo rmaliciousl yan d i s embarrasse d b ywha t ha s occurred . Clearly , Cit yattorne yacknowledge s that , i n hindsight , tha t i n suc h a n instanc e wher e h e involve d multipl e member s o fhi s staf fi n orde rt o ensur e effectiv e defens e o fthi s matter , hi s ow n failur e t o objectivel ycoordinat e staf fultimatel ycause d th e opposit e result . Unfortunately , th e absenc e o fundersigne d appearin g i n th e Court' s certificatio n lis t negate d tha t particula ravenu e fo ra fina l safeguar d an d Responden t faile d t o mee t th e Court' s Apri l 26 , 201 0 deadline . Nevertheless , Responden t ha s acknowledge d it s ful l responsibilit yan d i s respectfull yrequestin g equitabl e relief. . Immediatel yupo n learnin g (vi a th e Court' s Apri l 29 , 201 0 orde ro f Sanctions ) Responden t redouble d i t effort s t o complet e discoverycomplianc e has , thi s date , forwarde d complet e complianc e wit h Complainant' s Interrogatorie s an d Reques t fo r Production . Th e financia l impac t o fa n advers e decisio n i n thi s matte rwoul d obviousl y adversel yimpac t th e alread yoverburdene d taxpayer s o fth e Cit yo fBridgeportinasmuc h a s th e Cit yi fsel finsure d (ak s uninsured)
. I fComplainan t contend s prejudic e

an ykind , th e responden t i s willin g t o consen t t o a continuanc e fo rComplainant' s furthe r revie wan d preparatio n o fit s case . Th e overridin g polic yo fou rsyste m support s court s adjudicatin g matter s o n thei rmerits . Responden t doe s believ e tha t i t ha s goo d an d vali d defense s t o liabilit yo n th e issu e o fWildlif e Managemen t (VII , Paragraph s 23 . - 24 ; Paragrap h 26(p ) an d damage/penalt ycalculation s a s t o al l claims . Moreover , Responden t believe s an d contend s tha t ha s goo d an d vali d defenses base d upo n th e additiona l factor s a s se t fort h i n respons e t o Respondent' s InterrogatoryResponses^ 6(a) , 6(b ) an d 6(c)
.

^ 6 . Pleas e provid e a brie fsummaryo fal l propose d affirmativ e defense s an d th e factua l an d lega l basi s fo reach . Answer : a . Althoug h Bridgeport i s no t presentl yutilizin g it s Sectio n 13 9 Certificate , i t contemplate s possibl y bringin g i n Sectio n 13 9 ai rcarrier s upo n th e reconstruction , rehabilitation , renovatio n completio n o f runways , safet yzone s an d safet yarea s wit h previousl yrequeste d an d approve d Federa l gran t monies . Th e cos t o fth e reconstructio n an d associate d highwa yrelocatio n i s prohitjitiv e t o th e City
. Th e runwa y and , upo n informatio n an d belief , safet yzon e issue s cite d i n th e complain t ar e schedule d t o b e correcte d utilizin g th e anticipate d gran t monie s onc e th e safet yzon e litigatio n wit h th e Tow n o fStratfor d i s resolved . Unti l tha t time , n o gran t monie s fo rth e Federa l Governmen t wil l b e forthcoming . Inasmuc h a s n o Sectio n 13 9 commercia l carrie rwa s usin g th e airport a t th e time , th e violations , whic h wer e beyon d th e contro l o f Bridgeport , di d no t presen t a safet yhazar d t o an ysuc h commercia l carriers . Accordingly , th e propose d penalt yi s arbitraryan d excessive . b . Wit h th e exceptio n o fth e runwa yan d safet yare a structura l conditions , an d th e wildlif e issues , whic h ar e dispute d byth e City , th e remainin g deficiencie s a s cite d byth e FAAwer e promptl yattende d t o an d correcte d byth e City
. I n ligh t o fth e fac t tha t ther e n o Sectio n 13 9 carrier s utilizin g th e airport an d th e sai d correcte d deficiencie s wer e relativel yminor , th e propose d penaltie s ar e arbitraryan d excessive . c . Befor e March , 200 7 simila rtype s o fdeficiencie s wer e handle d b yth e FA AbyLette ro fCorrectio n an d wer e alway s promptl ycorrecte d b yth e airport . Th e FAAwa s awar e o fth e structura l issue s wit h th e runway s an d safet yarea s a s wel l a s th e ongoin g disput e wit h Stratfor d an d Bridgeport' s aggressiv e pursui t o ffedera l gran t monie s fo rrenovations . Th e FAAappear s t o b e usin g thi s litigatio n t o coerc e th e voluntarysurrende ro rinvoluntaryterminatio n o fth e Sectio n 13 9 Certificate
. I n vie wo fth e constraint s o n th e City' s abilit yt o replac e th e deterioratin g runwa ya t thi s time , fo rreason s wholl ybeyon d th e City' s control , i fwoul d b e unjus t t o enforc e monetarysanction s i n onerou s amoun t o f$77,000.0 0 fo rviolation s o fthi s nature , character , limite d duratio n an d extent .III . Conclusion/Clai m fo rRelie f Fo ral l o fth e abov e reason s th e Responden t respectfull yrequest s tha t th e court gran t th e followin g th e followin g relief : 1 . A n Orde rpermittin g th e Responden t t o introduc e evidence and/o rt o sponso r an ywitnesse s a t th e hearin g o n th e subjec t o fliabilit yfo ra civi l penalt yb y reaso n o fth e allege d FAAviolation s wit h whic h i t i s charged . 2 . A n orde rpermittin g th e Respondent' s participatio n t o cross-examinatio n o f th e witnes s o rwitnesse s sponsore d b yth e Complainan t an d th e presentatio n o fevidenc e bearin g upo n al l issues , includin g liability , mitigation , an d th e amoun t o fcivi l penalt yt o b e assessed , i fany , includin g th e defense s asserte d i n Interrogatoryresponse s 6(a) , 6(b ) an d 6(c)
. 3 . A n orde rdenyin g Complainant' s Motio n fo rDecisio n date d Ma y11 , 2010 .

TH E RESPONDENT , CIT YO F BRIDGEPOR T
BY _ Richai( d G
. Kascalfe , Jr . AssocweCit yAttorne y Offic e o ftTiS'CityAttorne y 99 9 Broa d Street , 2"^

^ Floo r Bridgeport , Connecticu t 06604-432 8 Telephon e (203 ) 576 - 764 7 Facsimil e (203 ) 576-825 2richard.kascak@bridgeportct.go v CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E Th e undersigne d hereb ycertifie s tha t th e foregoin g wa s faxe d an d sen t vi a postag e prepai d firs t class mail , thi s 21 t da yo fMay , 201 0 to : ORIGINA L AN D ON E COP Y Th e Honorabl e Isaa cD . Benkin , Administrativ e La wJudg e Offic e o fHearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t o fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun d Floor , Roo m E l 2-32 0 Washington , D.C
. 2059 0 

### Tel : (202)366-213 9 Fax : (202 ) 366-7536 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu rWrigh t Building-Suit e 2W100 0 ON E COP Y Joh n R . Donnelly , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o fth e Regiona l Counsel , ANE- 7 Ne wEnglan d Regio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 1 2 Ne wEnglan d Executiv e Par k Burlington , M A01803-529 9 Tel : 781-238-704 3 Fax : 781-238-705 5