03/24/2010 09:48 FAX 2024935142 FAA -+ OMS @OOl/004 

AALEGAL 8179634959 03/23 110 11:31 NO.819 01/04 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


FEDERAl., AVIAnON ADMINISTRATION 


§ FAA Civil Penalty 2008SW2102gg 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRAnON~ § 

Complainant § 

§ FAA Docket No.CP09SW0006 

v. 	 § 

§ Adrnblistrative Law Judge 

§ Ron. Rjcbard C. Goodwin 

AMERICAN EAGLE AIRT...JNES, INC., § 

Respondent § 

§ March 23.20] 0 

),_.,) 

IY£SPONDENT'S RESPON§E TOADMINlSTRATOR'S REQUEST TO AMENIB!S 

COMPLA.I~T 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 13.214(c), the Respondent, by counsel, objects to the Administrator's 

March 18, 2010 request to amend its complaint. The hearing date set for this case is March 24, 

2010, merely 5 days from the date of the Adtninistrator·s request. Respon.dent received copy of 

the Administrator's request OD. Marcb 22, 2010, merely two days prior to the hearing. TIle 

Administra.tor is well aW3l'e 1;hat amendments to a complaint sh.all be filed not later th.an ]5days 

before the scheduled h~aring pursuant to 14 C.F. R. 13.214 (b)(1). In. fact. the AdJ.njnistratot'~ 

Counsel has done that in this case already. Moreovc:r, ~blle an. adroini5LT.ative law judge may 

allow an am.en.dment of a. complai.llt less than 15 days prior to th.e scheduled hearing dan~~ such 

instances should ot)ly be in tboS(; ca:l'es whete good cause is shown. 

Here, the action that is complained of in the Administrato:r.'s complaint, took place in lau: 

January and early February 2008. The Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty, Final Order> Complaint 

and amen.ded Complaint all identifY Part D089 of Respondenfs Operations SpecificatiOllS t11at 

au:tborizes use oflhe time limitations specified in tbe EMB ESM Rev 17. Only n.ow, after 

completing di scovcry and Respondent taking depositions ofFAA lnsPQctoIS does the 
03/24/2010 09:48 FAX 2024935142 FAA .. OMS Iiil 0021004 

AALEGAL 8179634959 03/23 110 11:31 NO.819 02/04 

Administrator now reeogni:z:es c:.erta.in fai,)]ngs in its case and seeks to amen,d its complaint a 

second time. Notwithstanding the Adminjsttator' s contenti.on in its request lhat the amendment 

would. not add any new or additionsl violations, in faet, it would do just tha.t. Adding revision 16 

would be to add lit fa.oi'ual allegation. t.o support its jjndings of noncompliance with the Operation,s 

SpeCifications paragraph that the current amended complaint can not support. Furthermore. whi1e 

the Respondent has adm.itted to fue Iangua,ge in paragraphs 4 and 1 of the ori.ginal complaint, the 

Respondent denied the leading aUegation,s and conclusions oflaw as those provisions applied to 

the regulations citG:d by theAdministrator. Morecver. wbile paragraph 4 provides for authority 

and para,graph 7 provides for a perform.ance, neit11er paragraph. d,tes·an effective da.te a,s to the 

applicability of that revision to the event that lead to Eagle's SelfDisclosure to the F AI..... In 

addition, Respondent t'inds it odd that the Administrator states that the amendment would not 

incr.ease the civi] penalty amount sought in the complaint) in fact. (while Respondent contends 

tha.t the FAA should have accepted its Voluntary Self Disolosure:) without this amendment and 

the previous atnerl.dments (deletions) the AdministJ:ator has made to its origin.al complaint, the 

am.ount sought by the Administra:t.or should in, fact be much less, ifan,y1:h;ng at alL Lastly, even 

assuming that Ex.hibit A was in fact responsive to the Administrator's production request, 

Sxhibit A is In fact a copy of an eJeetronic document maintained in the sole custody ofthe FAA, 

not tM Respondent. As su.ch. the Administrator should not now be given the opportunity to 

amend its complaint for failings in its ovvn investigations and short comings at this late stage in 

the process. The Administrator has the burden of proof as to the allegations in its complaint and 

only now does it realize it oannot do that and looks to the Administrative Law Judge to assist in 

its meeting that burden. Respondent believes that doing so would be prejudic;,al to its d~;lfense. 

Accordingly. Respondent requests that the AdminisiTative Law Judge deny the Administrator's 

request to amend its complaint. 
03/24/2010 09:49 FAX 2024935142 FAA .. OMS 003/004 

AALEGAL 8179634959 03123 '10 11 :31 NO.819 03/04 

Respectfully submitted the 23rd ofMarcb 2010. 

American Eagle Airlines, Inc. 

By:,________------­

Francis C. Heil 

Senior Attorney for 

American Eagle Airlines, Inc. 

P.O, Bo>.: 619616 

Mail Drop 5615 

DFW Airport, TX 75261 ~9616 

Telephone; 202-496-5642 

Facsimile; 202~496~5660 
03/24/2010 09:49 FAX 2024935142 FAA .. OMS I4J 004/004 

AALEGAL 8179634959 03123 110 11:31 NO.819 04/04 

CERl:.IFICATE OF SERvICE 

I hereby certify that today~ March 23, 2010, I have sent by Facsimile and U.S. Mail the 

foregoing Response·to Administratof 's R.rtquesf to A.mend its Complaint in the matter of FAA y, 

Am.erican EagJe Airlines, Inc., to the following: 

ONt;COPY 


The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 


Administrative La,w JudSE: 


Department of Transportation., Rrn. E12..320 


Office ofHearings, M·20 


1200 New Jersey Avenue~ SE 


Washington, DC 20590 


Telephone: 202~366·2139 

FlilCsiro.i.le: 202-366-7536 


Rena Price, Attorney 


Federal Aviation AdmJnistrati.on 


Office ofth.e Regional Coun.sel (ASW-7) 


Soutbwest Region Headquarters 


2601 Meacham Blvd.. , Rm. 663 


Fon Wonh, T~a.s 761.37 


Telephone: 817-222-5068 


Facsimile: 817·222·5945 


ORIGINAL & ONE COpy 

Federal, Avlation Administration 


800 Independence Avenue, SW 


Washington., DC 20591 


Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 


Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2WI000 


facsjmile: 

BY;c;&~.~arS ~~~. Paralegal for 


American Eagle Aidil1es, Int':. 


Telephone! 817·967-1299 


Facsimile: 817·967~2937