UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

Paz Aviation, Inc. 

Respondent 

Wednesday, 

July 1, 2015 

FDMS No. 

FAA-2014-0807 

1 

The teleconference convened, pursuant 

to notice, at 1:30 p.m. 

BEFORE: 

THE HONORABLE J.E. SULLIVAN, 

Administrative Law Judge 

(202) 234-4433 

RECEIVED 

JUL 1 6 2015 

HEARiNG DOCf<;ET 

ORIGINAl 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
2 

APPEARANCES: 

On Behalf of the Complainant: 

WILLIAM VINES, ESQ. 

of: Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, Georgia 30337 

404-305-5200 

404-305-5223 fax 

On Behalf of the Respondent: 

DAVID M. MCDONALD, ESQ. 

of: McDonald & McDonald 

Attorneys at Law 

P.O. Box 669122 

Miami, Florida 33166-9428 

305-643-5313 

305-643-4990 fax 

Also Present: 

CODY L. SMITH, Attorney Advisor, 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
3 

1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 (1:33 p.m.) 

3 JUDGE SULLIVAN: We're on the record in 

4 the matter of Paz Aviation, Inc. This is Docket 

5 No. FAA-2014-0807. Today is Wednesday, July 1st, 

6 2015, and the parties have convened by telephone 

7 for continued motion argument on the Respondent's 

8 Motion To Dismiss. 

9 The FAA is represented by its attorney 

10 of record, Mr. William Vines. The Respondent, Paz 

11 Aviation, is represented by its attorney of 

12 record, David M. McDonald. Also present at the 

13 Office of Hearings chambers is Mr. Cody L. Smith, 

14 an attorney-advisor with this office, and he's 

15 appearing as an observer only. 

16 So, good afternoon to you all. I' 11 

17 note that we last convened on April 9th, 2015, 

18 but at that time there was a problem with the 

19 Court's telephone conference line, and as a 

20 result, the motion conference was continued to 

21 April 22nd, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. 

22 

(202) 234-4433 

On April 22nd, 2015, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

the parties 

(202) 234-4433 
4 

1 convened by telephone, and we had some discussion 

2 about the Respondent's motion. During that 

3 discussion, the parties agreed that supplemental 

4 materials might be helpful, and we set briefing 

5 dates, and today's date and time for a new motion 

6 conference, and that was codified by the April 

7 23rd, 2015 order. 

8 So, since that time I have received 

9 the Respondent's Amended Motion To Dismiss the 

10 memorandum of law which was filed with the office 

11 on May 15, 2015, the FAA's June 5, 2015 Notice of 

12 Amended Complaint, and a response to Respondent's 

13 Amended Motion To Dismiss in a memorandum of law. 

14 I also received on June 19, 2015, a Motion To 

15 Dismiss Amended Complaint and Reply Memorandum 

16 concerning Respondent's Motion To Dismiss. So 

17 starting with you, since you were the moving 

18 party, is there anything else that was filed 

19 since our April 22nd, 2015 conference? 

20 MR. MCDONALD: No. You listed the other 

21 thing that I'm aware of. 

22 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Mr. Vines, same 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
5 

1 question to you. Anything that may have been 

2 filed by the FAA that I didn't identify? 

3 MR. VINES: I believe so, Judge. I 

4 believe you recognized all filings. 

5 JUDGE SULLIVAN: I'm sorry, sir. I 

6 couldn't hear you. 

7 MR. VINES: Judge, I don't believe you 

8 left out anything. I believe you recognized all 

9 of the agency's filings. 

10 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you both, 

11 very much. I' 11 note that I've read everything 

12 that the parties have filed, and so Mr. McDonald, 

13 this is your motion. Would you like to take five 

14 or ten minutes just to highlight what you think 

15 is important, and then let me ask you, before you 

16 respond. Do you want me to --- is it easier for 

17 you to do a brief presentation and then take some 

18 questions? Or do you want to take questions 

19 throughout your presentation? 

20 MR. MCDONALD: I'm pretty flexible, 

21 Judge. I'll take them as you send them. 

22 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Well, why don't 

(202) 234·4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
6 

1 I give you some time, just to highlight your 

2 client's position, and then I may ask you some 

3 questions along the way, or wait until you are 

4 finished. So please go ahead, sir. 

5 MR. MCDONALD: Okay. Well, as the 

6 Court ' s well aware, I 'm not going to spend very 

7 much time at all in renewing all that's happened. 

8 But the Complaint alleges, original Complaint 

9 alleged actions occurring from 2008 through April 

10 27th of 2011. It was originally filed October --

11 the Complaint was originally filed October 7th 

12 of 2014. We have moved to dismiss based on 49 

13 U.S.C. 46301, as set forth in the motion, on the 

14 basis that more than two years has passed since 

15 the last incident, which, as I mentioned a moment 

16 ago, was April 27th, 2011. 

17 Without invading the FAA's argument, 

18 the FAA, in response to that, amended its 

19 complaint and removed the alleged violations 

2 0 based on incidents that occurred more than two 

21 years prior to it issuing its Notice of Proposed 

22 Civil Penalty, which is the amended complaint 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
7 

1 that's currently before the court. 

2 In response, the Respondent still 

3 maintains the position that under 29 U.S.C. 

4 46301, the Complaint is the document that must be 

5 filed in order to stop the statute of 

6 limitations, and that is based on an analogy of 

7 the cases interpreting the statute, 28 u.S. C. 

8 Section 2462~ which says that --- summarizing but 

9 mostly quoting --- an action for enforcement of a 

10 civil fine shall not be entertained unless 

11 commenced within five years. 

12 The Aerocomp case, cited in our 

13 memoranda, of the initial reply, and Aviation 

14 Brake, found that it is the filing of a complaint 

15 that starts the statute of limitations under ---

16 it specifies in the statute, 28 u.s.c. Section 

17 2462--

18 JUDGE SULLIVAN: And let me stop you 

19 and ask a question about that, sir. And I'm 

20 looking at specifically, as I ask this question, 

21 your June 19, 2015 Motion To Dismiss Amended 

22 Complaint and Reply, and it's clear that you are 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
8 

1 citing to 1:40:06 In re Aerocomp, which is FAA2 2005-21064, a 2005 case issued by Judge Benkin of 

3 this particular office. 

4 As I read that particular case, and 

5 perhaps I misread it, and I wanted to ask you 

6 about it, it appeared to me that Judge Benkin was 

7 unaware that 28 U.S.C. Section 2462, which he 

8 relied on in that case as he discussed it, had 

9 actually been superseded, or at least what 

10 appears to me, to be superseded by 49 U.S.C. 

11 Section 1471, subsection (a) (3), which was 

12 enacted in 1992, two years after the FAA 

13 published its 1990 final discussion about its 

14 Federal Rules. And if we assume, as it appears 

15 to be in that particular case, Judge Benkin was 

16 unaware of that, would that not then limit the 

17 support it provides in your argument for a five 

18 year period of time, utilizing the Complaint 

19 only? 

20 MR. MCDONALD: Yes. I'm not suggesting 

21 that five years would be appropriate time period. 

22 We're suggesting that of course two years would 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
9 

1 be appropriate time period. The argument I'm 

2 trying to make is that the cases interpreting the 

3 statute and I'm making a comparison of 

4 statutes, which is 49 U.S.C. 46301 v. 28 U.S.C. 

5 2462. 

6 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Right. So you're 

7 MR. MCDONALD: It explains the same 

8 thing that the statute is the language of the 

9 two of them are the same, Your Honor, in that an 

10 action, a civil action must be commenced within 

11 the applicable period, whether it's five years 

12 under 2462, or two years under 46301. An action 

13 must be commenced. And then various cases, 

14 Aerocomp Aviation and Aviation Brake, both stand 

15 for the proposition that it is a Complaint that 

16 must be filed, and that a Notice of Proposed 

17 Civil Penalty is not the initiation of a civil 

18 action. 

19 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. But as I 

20 understand it from those cases --- and correct me 

21 if I'm wrong Judge Benkin reached that 

22 decision because he did not know, or at least did 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
10 

1 not reference the enabling statute that passed in 

2 1992, that provided for the two year period of 

3 time. 

4 MR. MCDONALD: I can't guess on what he 

5 was aware of. The cases come to you, Your Honor, 

6 as briefed by counsel, and, you know, issues that 

7 aren't raised may, you know, may not be 

8 considered. I can't guess why --

9 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Well, I 

10 MR. MCDONALD: that's not 

11 mentioned in there. 

12 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Yes. It appeared to 

13 me, from the reading that I did, and I'm 

14 certainly willing to be corrected, but it 

15 appeared to me that Judge Benkin had not been 

16 informed, that there was an enabling statute for 

17 the two year period of time, that did not specify 

18 that the initiation had to be a Complaint. It 

19 simply specified that the initiation of the 

2 0 action had to occur, and under the final rule 

21 discussion that preceded that enabling statute by 

22 two years, there was a decision made by the 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
11 

1 Administrator that the initiation of the action 

2 was the filing of the Notice of Proposed Civil 

3 Penalty, and not the filing of the Complaint. 

4 So I'm wondering if you could help me, 

5 and tell me here your client wants me to go with 

6 that, because it's something that I would have to 

7 deal with in addressing your motion. In order for 

8 me to grant your request under this particular 

9 prong of your argument, I have to know where you 

10 think I should be going with that particular 

11 history, that's clearly enunciated in both the 

12 Federal Register and in the enabling statute that 

13 was subsequently passed. 

14 So can you give me an idea of where 

15 you think, or how you think I should be 

16 addressing that particular point of historic 

17 reality. 

18 MR. MCDONALD: Well, it appears to me 

19 that we're dealing with two different types of 

20 rules, and those are identified within the cases, 

21 which is there are cases interpreting the 

22 administrative ---your rules of practice, 13.208 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
12 

1 is the applicable one here, and those cases 

2 clearly have held that the Notice of Proposed 

3 Civil Action is sufficient to stop the statute 

4 under 13.208. 

5 However, the cases dealing with the 

6 statutes as opposed to the CARS have held that a 

7 civil action is commenced with the filing of the 

8 Complaint and not a civil --- Noticed of proposed 

9 Civil Penalty, and as a result, it is the filing 

10 of the Complaint which complies with the statute, 

11 as opposed to the Code of Federal Regulations --

12 JUDGE SULLIVAN: And --

13 MR. MCDONALD: requirement to file 

14 a Complaint within two years. 

15 JUDGE SULLIVAN: And when you're 

16 talking about the cases, you're specifically 

17 referring me back to those cases that Judge 

18 Benkin had issued after 19 --

19 MR. MCDONALD: Yes. 

20 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you. Go 

21 ahead. 

22 MR. MCDONALD: Yes. The Johnson v. SEC. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
13 

1 3M v. Bowser. Also --- I think those were cited 

2 as well. 

3 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Correct. That's on 

4 page one of your Reply. 

5 MR. MCDONALD: Right. Yes. Those were 

6 also cited in Aviation Brake. 

7 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Yes, and you also had 

8 cited other cases on page two of your Reply. 

9 MR. MCDONALD: Yes. 

10 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Yes. Okay. Thank you, 

11 sir. Go ahead. 

12 MR. MCDONALD: So that's the 

13 distinction we're making. I think there's no 

14 doubt, and I have no argument, I have no doubt in 

15 my mind, that the Administrator's position has 

16 been that the interpretation of its rules of 

17 practices doesn't also propose civil penalty is 

18 sufficient. But to meet the requirements, to stop 

19 the statute under 13.208. 

20 However, now, we have also a two year 

21 statute of limitations on civil penalties, which 

22 requires the initiation of a civil action, and a 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234·4433 
14 

1 civil action is initiated by a Complaint. 

2 JUDGE SULLIVAN: So you are taking a 

3 position that the Administrator does not have the 

4 authority to rule that the initiation of the 

5 action comes with the filing of the Notice of 

6 Proposed Civil Penalty. That that's beyond the 

7 scope of the Administrator's power? 

8 MR. MCDONALD: I believe that's beyond 

9 --- as it applies to 49 U.S.C. 46301. Yes. 

10 JUDGE SULLIVAN: As I understand it, 

11 that's the enabling statute that you're using to 

12 claim, or to assert, that it trumps, essentially, 

13 the Rules of Practice under 49 CFR Section 

14 13.208, specifically, and to the Administrator's 

15 line of decisions following the adoption of that 

16 rule. That's my understanding of your argument. 

17 MR. MCDONALD: That is correct. 

18 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. 

19 MR. MCDONALD: That the statute trumps 

20 the rule. Yes. 

21 JUDGE SULLIVAN: okay. And this 

22 particular statute, let's go to that very 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
15 

1 briefly. I have a copy in front of me. 

2 This particular statute, that which we 

3 identified as 49 u.s.c. 46301, subsection 

4 (d) (7)©, states, quote, "except for good cause, a 

5 civil action involving a penalty under this 

6 paragraph may not be initiated later than two 

7 year after the violation occurs.'' End quote. 

8 This particular enabling statute does 

9 not identify the initiation of the action 

10 specifically as the filing of a Complaint. There 

11 has been discussion in the FAA's briefing 

12 material, that says that that is compelling, and 

13 should be deemed compelling in this court's 

14 review of this motion. What is your response to 

15 that? Should it say Complaint specific, or does 

16 it not need to? 

17 MR. MCDONALD: Well, I think in the 

18 Administrator's response, the only case 

19 JUDGE SULLIVAN: I'm going to just stop 

20 you. The Administrator's not a litigant in this 

21 proceeding. 

22 MR. MCDONALD: I am sorry. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
16 

1 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Go ahead. In the 

2 FAA's response. 

3 MR. MCDONALD: In the FAA's response. 

4 The only case that they cite, that a Notice of 

5 Proposed Civil Penalty is sufficient to stop the 

6 statute running under 49 U.S.C. 46301, is the 

7 Vanguard case, which was filed in 2002, and if 

8 you look at that case, the --

9 JUDGE SULLIVAN: If you give me a 

10 minute, I'll pull it up. Okay. I have it in 

11 front of me. 

12 MR. MCDONALD: And what'S before the 

13 court there is a Motion To Dismiss under Rule 

14 13.208, and the case was ultimately dismissed on 

15 the basis that no good cause was found for the 

16 administrative delay and not filing the Notice of 

17 Proposed Civil Penalty within the two years 

18 required by 13.208. 

19 However, it's in Note 3 that the FAA 

20 is hooking its fingernails, and the problem is 

21 that Note 3 is a general comment that both 13.208 

22 and 49 U.S.C. 46301 require the Notice of 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
17 

1 Proposed Civil Penalty to be filed within two 

2 years. That comment, though, is pure dicta. It's 

3 a summary comment, but it's also pure dicta, 

4 because the only issue before the court was the 

5 Motion To Dismiss under 13.208. I don't know why 

6 the court, in its order, picked up a reference to 

7 49 U.S.C. 46301, but it --- whatever. It was not, 

8 in my opinion, a finding by the court, but merely 

9 dicta. 

10 JUDGE SULLIVAN: I would agree with you 

11 that footnotes don't have --- that footnotes are 

12 typically dicta. I don't have any problem 

13 agreeing with you about that. What else would 

14 you like to add to this particular section of the 

15 argument? 

16 MR. MCDONALD: I think we have 

17 addressed it, Judge. It's, you know, it's as you 

18 suggest, it's quite simply it's our position 

19 that the statute, 49 u.s.c. Section 46301, 

20 trumps, or prevails over the Administrator's rule 

21 in 13.208, and its cases interpreting 13.208. 

22 JUDGE SULLIVAN: What I'm going to do, 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
18 

1 Mr. McDonald, is I'm going to ask you to reserve 

2 the rest of your argument regarding laches, so 

3 that we --- so that our transcript record kind of 

4 follows this argument closely. 

5 MR. MCDONALD: Okay. 

6 JUDGE SULLIVAN: And then I'm going to 

7 turn to Mr. Vines next, and I'm going to ask him 

8 to respond to this primary argument that you've 

9 made, both orally and in writing. Mr. Vines, if 

10 you could limit your response at this point to 

11 simply the issue regarding the timeliness, we 

12 will then come back to you later regarding the 

13 laches defense. If you would be so kind. I seem 

14 to have lost Mr. Vines. 

15 MR. VINES: Judge, I'm here. I'm sorry. 

16 In the conferences with the Court, I normally put 

17 my phone on mute, so there's not any background 

18 noise with me shuffling papers, interrupting 

19 conversations with yourself and the other party. 

20 So I apologize for that. I am here and I've been 

21 listening. Judge, I would just --- I direct your 

22 attention to the Agency's response regarding the 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
19 

1 case file, that was cited where --

2 JUDGE SULLIVAN: And Mr. Vines, can you 

3 give me a specific page number, so that I can be 

4 right with you in whatever argument you're 

5 making. 

6 MR. VINES: Yes, Judge. On the FAA 

7 Notice of Amended Complaint, and FAA's response, 

8 the Respondent's Amended Motion To Dismiss 

9 JUDGE SULLIVAN: All right. 

10 MR. VINES: that would be page 

11 seven. 

12 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Let me go to 

13 page seven. All right. Go ahead, sir. 

14 MR. VINES: So there, Judge, the Agency 

15 cited, in the matter of David Everson, where the 

16 Respondent moved to dismiss several of FAA's 

17 allegations under the stale complaint rule, 

18 because FAA filed a Notice of Proposed Civil 

19 Penalty more than two years after the Respondent 

20 committed violations. 

21 There, the Administrator cited both 46 

22 301 (d) (7) ©' 

(202) 234-4433 

and of course the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

regulation 

(202) 234-4433 
20 

1 13.208 (d), for the position that the statute of 

2 limitations required initiation of a notice, not 

3 a Complaint. So there, Judge, I would again, in 

4 defense to the Respondent's claim that the 

5 statute, 49 U.S.C. 46301 requires a Complaint be 

6 issued. I would argue, Judge, that the --- that 

7 is not the case. In fact, that it's the notice, 

8 as you yourself, Judge, indicated earlier. 

9 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Well, why don't we 

10 talk a little bit about that, because some of my 

11 questions are simply it's not stating a 

12 position. It's simply asking for more 

13 information. Let's talk a little bit about your 

14 position that 49 U.S.C. Section 46301(d) (7)©, 

15 basically is not in conflict, according to your 

16 client's position, with the regulation identified 

17 under 14 CFR Section 13.208. 

18 You're saying, essentially, that the 

19 enabling statute that we talked about is 

20 consistent with the Administrator's 

21 interpretation that preceded the enactment of 

22 that enabling statute. And why is that, in your 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 (202) 234·4433 
21 

1 opinion? How did that --- how is that a symbiotic 

2 dialogue, if you will? 

3 MR. VINES: Will you repeat the 

4 question, Judge? 

5 JUDGE SULLIVAN: I'm not sure I can, 

6 because it was a fairly long one, but I will give 

7 it my best. You are relying upon 4 9 U.S. C. 

8 Section 46301, subsection as the 

9 enabling statute that says that you must 

10 initiate a Complaint within two years of the 

11 action. You're asserting that the 

12 MR. VINES: Judge, no, it's the 

13 Agency's --- I'm sorry to interrupt, Judge. It's 

14 the Agency's position that that particular 

15 statute requires a Notice of Proposed Civil 

16 Penalty be issued. 

17 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Correct, whereas the 

18 Respondent is asserting that it's a Complaint. So 

19 explain to us why, in your opinion, that I can 

20 read, and that the Respondent should be reading, 

21 the enabling statute as reflective of the rules 

22 of practice which were adopted prior to the 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
22 

1 enactment of the statute. How is that possible, 

2 in your opinion? 

3 MR. VINES: As the rule --- again, I'm 

4 doing my best to answer your question. The rules 

5 that, my understanding, that were enacted prior 

6 to 49 U.S.C. 46301, in fact, discussed a two year 

7 --- there was, I believe, if I recall, there was 

8 a two year limitation, in that the Agency was 

9 required to issue a notice in two years of the 

10 hearing of the claim taking or the violation 

11 having taken place. If I recall correctly. 

12 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Right. They both did. 

13 But neither of them cited to either a Notice of 

14 Proposed Civil Penalty or to a Complaint, 

15 specifically as the triggering action for the 

16 initiation of an action. So can you explain, and 

17 maybe you can't, but I'm just asking if you can, 

18 why --

19 MR. VINES: Judge, I may not I 

20 don't feel like I'm in the best position to 

21 go down that route without engaging in further 

22 research to effectively respond to that. 

(202) 234·4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234·4433 
23 

1 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. All right. Then 

2 let me ask you what your position is, or your 

3 response is to Respondent's assertion that in 

4 Judge Benkin's cases, and some of the other cases 

5 the Respondent listed, should not be deemed 

6 compelling. Why not? 

7 MR. VINES: Judge, it's my 

8 understanding that Judge Benkin' s cases dealt 

9 with whether or not the five year statute of 

10 limitations that is applicable --- and that was a 

11 specific statute 

12 (Telephonic interference.) 

13 JUDGE SULLIVAN: I'm sorry, but I'm 

14 going to stop you, Mr. Vines. We're getting some 

15 static. So could you start again, because there 

16 was some static, and I don't think we got 

17 everything you said. 

18 MR. VINES: Yes, Judge. It's my 

19 understanding that Judge Benkin' s opinions, or 

20 orders, were based on whether 28 U.S.C. Section 

21 2462 , were applicable to whether the Agency had 

22 a five year statute of limitations by way of 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
24 

1 filing a Complaint, versus limited to just a 

2 requirement that the FAA had to issue a two year 

3 issue a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty 

4 within two years of the violation. 

5 I don't I'm not quite sure if 

6 Judge Benkin's opinions are on point with whether 

7 or not 46 49 u.s.c. 46301 should be 

8 interpreted as -- a Complaint should be issued or 

9 a notice should be filed. Does that appropriate 

10 answer your question, Judge? 

11 JUDGE SULLIVAN: I'm happy to accept 

12 that answer. Thank you so much. Anything else 

13 that you would like to add to your client's 

14 response to this portion of the Respondent's 

15 motion? 

16 MR. VINES: Not at this time, Judge. 

17 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Mr. McDonald, I'm 

18 going to turn back to you. First, you have a 

19 right of final reply on this particular issue, 

2 0 and then we' re going to move in to the laches 

21 affirmative defense. So do you have anything 

22 else you would like to add to the timeliness 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
25 

1 portion of your Motion To Dismiss? 

2 MR. MCDONALD: Yes. I'd like to say my 

3 motion was timely, but responding to the 

4 directness of your question, but joking aside, 

5 Your Honor, the 13.208 specifically states that a 

6 Motion To Dismiss may be filed if the Agency has 

7 failed to issue a Notice of Proposed Civil 

8 Penalty within two years after the incident 

9 occurred. 

10 And so it specifically is referring to 

11 a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty. Now when you 

12 look at the statute, which is 49 U.S.C., it very 

13 similar to the language used in 28 U.S.C. 2462, 

14 that is that a civil action must be initiated, 

15 and it's our position that, consistent with Judge 

16 Benkin's decision, that a civil action requires a 

17 filing of a Complaint. That is the initiation of 

18 a civil action, and hence, the requirement in the 

19 current statute, 49 U.S.C. 46301, which also 

20 requires the initiation of a civil action, 

21 requires the filing of a Complaint within the 

22 time period. That's all I have. 

(202) 234·4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 (202) 234-4433 
26 

1 JUDGE SULLIVAN: You did have a chance 

2 to read the 1990 Federal Register sections that 

3 dealt with the final rules discussion by the 

4 Administrator before today, did you not, Mr. 

5 McDonald? 

6 MR. MCDONALD: I did. I did. 

7 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Then let's talk 

8 a little bit about that. Specifically, this is 

9 Volume 55 of the Federal Register, starting at 

10 page 27548 and running through to approximately 

11 page 27572. There was a lot of information in 

12 this particular publication about the final rules 

13 and why the FAA was adopting them. And in this 

14 particular material, the Administrator basically 

15 said, and I'm going to refer you to 55 Federal 

16 Register page 27556, that the FAA --- and I'm 

17 going to quote --- quote: "has always considered 

18 legal enforcement action to be initiated with the 

19 issuance of a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty.'' 

20 End quote. 

21 So if the FAA has publicly announced 

22 that it is utilizing the Notice of Proposed Civil 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
27 

1 Penalty as its first pleading, and on civil 

2 penalty action, isn't that enough? And if it's 

3 not enough, what authority do you have to tell me 

4 that it's not enough? 

5 MR. MCDONALD: Well, I've always 

6 you know, the FAA addresses that when it says, 

7 you know, after careful consideration, at the top 

8 of --- I have an excerpt of the paragraph dealing 

9 with the limitations paragraph. It's in there. 

10 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Do you have a page 

11 number --

12 MR. MCDONALD: And it states that ---

13 you know, the way this printed, my page numbers 

14 are showing, it's very difficult to find. 

15 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Well, sir, go 

16 ahead and 

17 MR. MCDONALD: But the paragraph starts 

18 with, "After careful consideration, the FAA's 

19 adopting a tiered statute of limitations and is 

20 amending 

21 (Telephonic interference.) 

22 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Let me stop you. Just 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
28 

1 for your record, it's page 27553. Go ahead. 

2 MR. MCDONALD: is amending Section 

3 13 2 . 208 of the Rules of Practice to so 

4 reflect, where for pursuant to this limitations 

5 period, the Agency will be required to issue a 

6 Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty within two years 

7 after the date of the alleged violation in all 

8 cases in which it has a subsequent authority." 

9 It doesn't deal with, in my opinion, 

10 the issue of 49 u.s.c. 46301. The FAA is 

11 certainly entitled to issue its own guidance on 

12 the interpretation of its rules. What you're 

13 asking me is, does the if I understand your 

14 question, Judge is, does the FAA have the 

15 right to issue binding authority on its 

16 interpretation of the United States statutes? 

17 And my response to that is no. And we 

18 look at other court decision which have 

19 interpreted those statutes on what is required to 

20 initiate a civil action, and, you know, as some 

21 of the courts said, plea, plea negotiations, what 

22 have you, even if they're statutorily required, 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
29 

1 are not the initiation of a civil action. The 

2 initiation of a civil action is accomplished with 

3 the filing of a Complaint. 

4 JUDGE SULLIVAN: What is the 

5 difference, in your opinion, substantively, 

6 between the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that 

7 your client received in this particular case, and 

8 the subsequent Complaint that was filed? Was 

9 there any difference, in your opinion, other than 

10 the title of the document? 

11 MR. MCDONALD: Oh, I would have to look 

12 at those real quick, Judge. I don't think there's 

13 a huge difference between the two. There 

14 typically is not. However, it's --- what we're 

15 talking about is how to comply with a statute 

16 that requires a Plaintiff to do a certain thing 

17 within a certain time limitation, and that 

18 statute clearly, in my opinion, requires 

19 initiation of a civil action and that's done with 

20 a Complaint. 

21 The Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty 

22 would not otherwise be filed. It's not really 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
30 

1 filed in these cases. This court doesn't receive 

2 it. You receive a Complaint. Yes, it is a 

3 refiling of the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, 

4 as the Administrator's Complaint, but that is the 

5 initiation, the filing of the Complaint. That's 

6 when it comes to you. 

7 JUDGE SULLIVAN: There was discussion 

8 in the Federal Register, same Federal Register 

9 portion that we've already identified, about why 

10 the FAA Administrator, in 1990, was choosing not 

11 to file a Complaint within the two year period, 

12 or providing that a rule would not be issued to 

13 force the FAA to file a Complaint within the two 

14 year period. 

15 And why the FAA felt that it was of 

16 benefit to the Respondent not to have a Complaint 

17 issued immediately. So I mean, there's a lot of 

18 dialogue about that in the Federal Register, that 

19 we've been talking about. So 

20 MR. MCDONALD: I'm generally familiar 

21 with that, Your Honor, from having read through 

22 this. 

(202) 234-4433 

And part of that was, as I recall, to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
31 

1 allow for the informal conference period to take 

2 place. 

3 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Right. And there was -

4 

5 MR. MCDONALD: Two years is plenty of 

6 time for that. 

7 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Is it your 

8 position that the FAA Administrator was without 

9 authority to do this, and remains without 

10 authority to make this type of ruling? 

11 MR. MCDONALD: Which ruling? 

12 JUDGE SULLIVAN: The ruling on how it's 

13 going to effectuate its statutory mission. 

14 MR. MCDONALD: Your Honor, I really, I 

15 think it's entitled to do that, to make that 

16 ruling with regard to 49 U.S.C. 13.208. However17 --I'm sorry. I said 40 ---with regard to 14 CFR 

18 Section 13.208. I think it is entirely up to the 

19 Administrator, and it has the authority to issue 

2 o guidance and interpret its own rules. It is my 

21 position, and my legal opinion, that the FAA does 

22 not have authority to issue binding guidance and 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
32 

l interpretation on the statute, 49 U.S.C. 4630l. 

2 JUDGE SULLIVAN: And in your argument, 

3 just so that I'm clear, under either the first 

4 statute that was passed by Congress in l992, 

5 which was 49 U.S.C. Section l47l(a) (3), it talked 

6 about the two year period between the violation 

7 and the initiation of a civil action. And then 

8 the recodification of that statute in to 49 

9 u.s.c. 4630l(d) (7)©. That language that is 

lO repeated in both of those statutes, it talks 

ll about the initiation of a civil action, has to be 

l2 interpreted by this court as meaning a Complaint, 

l3 as opposed to the Notice of Proposed Civil 

l4 Penalty. 

l5 MR. MCDONALD: That is my position. 

l6 Yes, Your Honor. 

l7 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. And other than 

lB the case law that you've provided in your--- I'm 

l9 sorry, I shouldn't say other than. Your support 

20 for that argument is provided in the case law 

2l authority that you've given in your written 

22 materials? 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
33 

1 MR. MCDONALD: Yes, Your Honor. 

2 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you very 

3 much. Let's talk about laches now. You've 

4 indicated that you believe that if --- well, I 

5 shouldn't say if. You've indicated, and you've 

6 raised a defense of laches. Can you identify, or, 

7 you know, basically highlight what you have 

8 shown, and why you believe that it's enough to 

9 demonstrate that the action should be dismissed 

10 under the grounds of laches. 

11 MR. MCDONALD: Yes, I believe we've 

12 heard, I think we've fully addressed that. I 

13 mean, you look at the cases that have dealt with 

14 laches, many of them are summarily dismissed on 

15 the basis that Respondent bears a burden of 

16 proving in its motion facts giving rise to the 

17 defense of laches, and as a result, many of those 

18 have been summarily dismissed on the basis that 

19 the Respondent failed to do so. 

20 In this particular case, the 

21 Respondent not only alleged facts that give rise, 

22 or support its laches defense, which is namely 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 (202) 234·4433 
34 

1 that there's been a passage of time, that it's 

2 lost the ability to locate witnesses, and that 

3 the facility that did the work on the tooling, 

4 which is the subject matter of this suit, if we 

5 ever get there, was done by a company that' s 

6 since gone out of business and we can't find it 

7 anymore. So records have been lost, and a 

8 witness, at least one witness has been lost, 

9 whose allegations within the motion are supported 

10 by the affidavit of Respondent. So it is --

11 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Well, I must go to 

12 that, briefly. As I'm looking at the affidavit of 

13 a Mr. Jay Allen, that is attached to your May 15, 

14 2015 Amended Motion To Dismiss, and on page two 

15 of that three page affidavit, part of paragraph 

16 four, Mr. Allen states that since the FAA issued 

17 its Letter of Investigation, its potential 

18 witness, Respondent's potential witness named 

19 Jack Batista, has moved out of state, and the 

20 Respondent has been unable to locate him. 

21 My question to you about this is that 

22 the FAA, in its responsive materials, asserts 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
35 

1 that you need to show some effort that you've 

2 made to try and locate witnesses, and that you 

3 haven't. What is your response to that? Why 

4 should this particular statement be deemed 

5 sufficient to show that a witness is missing and 

6 is unable to be found? 

7 MR. MCDONALD: Well, it's my opinion, 

8 Your Honor, that this is testimony before the 

9 court, under oath, subject to the penalty of 

10 perjury, that while not enumerating what steps 

11 have been made to locate the witness, that the 

12 witness has, that' we've been unable to locate 

13 him as of the time of filing that affidavit. 

14 I'll add that we haven't found him yet either. 

15 But that is a proffer to the court. Certainly 

16 also that the company which performed the work, 

17 and very likely its records regarding the work 

18 that was performed on this drawing have also been 

19 lost. 

20 The Administrator, I thought, gave a 

21 clever response in its argument against this. 

22 They say that to attack the affidavit, and in my 

(202) 234·4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
36 

1 view, if you read the cases dealing with prior 

2 summary motions to dismiss, if you will, under 

3 the stale complaint no, I'm sorry--- under a 

4 laches defense, you see that the FAA looks to the 

5 Respondent to make at least a showing, provide an 

6 evidentiary basis, for the defense. I don't think 

7 it's a matter of proving it all now. That it is a 

8 matter of certainly making a showing that there's 

9 evidence, testimony, or other evidence which 

10 would support the minimum requirements of the 

11 defense. 

12 At that point, it's our position that 

13 the burden moves to the Administrator, to show 

14 that, to provide some evidentiary basis that 

15 there is no laches defense, that there was no 

16 prejudice, or whatever the case may be, however 

17 he chooses to actually attack the defense. 

18 Here, the Administrator chose not to 

19 do that. The Administrator, instead, chose to do 

20 what many Respondents do when initially raising 

21 the issue of laches, and just simply say it, you 

22 know, this has gone on for too long, and we're 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
37 

1 prejudiced, and the matter should be dismissed 

2 under a laches defense, without providing any 

3 basis, evidentiary basis, for the claim of 

4 prejudice. 

5 Here, we have done that. We've met the 

6 obligations to show the defense is a viable 

7 defense, by alleging facts supporting the 

8 defense, and it's now the Administrator's burden 

9 to go forward with the evidence to prove 

10 otherwise. It's failed to do so. 

11 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Well, let me ask you a 

12 question about this, and I'll be talking with the 

13 FAA about this as well. Again, I'm going to turn 

14 back to Volume 55 of the Federal Register, and in 

15 this particular discussion, let's turn 

16 (Telephonic interference.) 

17 JUDGE SULLIVAN: And in this 

18 particular discussion, the FAA is talking about 

19 the defense of laches, and when the defense of 

20 laches should be raised, and under what 

21 circumstances. Now on page 27556, there's a 

22 statement that says that essentially, part of the 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
38 

1 laches defense should be, quote, "because 

2 documents or witnesses become unavailable due 

3 solely to the Agency's unreasonable or excessive 

4 delay in initiating the case." End quote. 

5 And what I'm seeing in this affidavit 

6 that was presented by your client, is that the 

7 client received a Letter of Investigation. This 

8 particular affidavit doesn't say when, but it 

9 does acknowledge that a Letter of Investigation 

10 was received, and according to the FAA's 

11 responsive materials, which it filed on June 5, 

12 2015, that Letter of Investigation was fairly 

13 detailed, and was provided on or about June 23rd, 

14 2011, giving a tremendous amount of information 

15 to your client about what the allegations were, 

16 the basis for the allegations, the rationale and 

17 analysis supporting the investigation results, 

18 and so forth. 

19 So if that has been provided, and I 

20 would agree that it doesn't serve, or supplant 

21 the need for some type of initial pleading, 

22 whether that be the Notice of Proposed Civil 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
39 

1 Penalty or Complaint we haven't decided yet. But 

2 if that Letter of Investigation has been 

3 provided, doesn't that trigger your client's 

4 responsibility to start preserving evidence and 

5 obtaining evidence in the event of a future 

6 filing? And if so, and your client failed to do 

7 that, can I possibly find that it was only the 

8 FAA's fault? 

9 MR. MCDONALD: Well, Your Honor, as I 

10 sit here right now, I don't recall the exact 

11 dates, but that equipment was modified, as I 

12 recall, back in about 2008, and -- here are the 

13 exhibits we sent. No. That was in 2011. 

14 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Well, I have, on your 

15 Amended Motion, filed May 15, 2015, an exhibit 

16 that's entitled Capability List, Establishment 

17 and Revision Processes Approved as of July 8, 

18 2008, and signed by a general manager whose 

19 signature I can't read. But there's certainly 

20 material in your exhibits that are dated back to 

21 July 2008, and then subsequently, December 2008. 

22 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. MCDONALD: Yes. It's a different 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
40 

1 argument I'm making there, Your Honor, possibly 

2 unclearly, but I'll try and make it more clear. 

3 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. 

4 MR. MCDONALD: I took a two-prong 

5 attack on that. I think this is a little bit 

6 beyond the motions before the court, possibly, 

7 but to respond to your inquiry, the position the 

8 Respondent's taking is two things. One: it had 

9 tooling--- I'm not sure how relevant this is now 

10 that the Administrator's amended the Complaint. 

11 But it had tooling that was approved for its use. 

12 It had the manuals, tooling, 

13 facilities, everything that is required in order 

14 to conduct repair on these particular units, back 

15 in 2008, and it proved that to the FAA, and upon 

16 that proof, its capabilities list was expanded to 

17 include the ability to work on these particular 

18 units, and then it began working on those. 

19 At a subsequent point in time, the FAA 

20 via a different inspector, visited the 

21 Respondent's facilities, and that particular 

22 tooling was not there. The reason that particular 

(202) 234A433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
41 

1 tooling was not there was that it had been sent 

2 out to be modified. 

3 So that and I'll just briefly 

4 explain this to you, Your Honor. The tooling, 

5 originally, was made so it could both test 

6 pneumatic and hydraulic systems, and it was 

7 decided, based upon, as I understand it, new 

8 requirements of the FAA on the repair station, to 

9 have separate tooling for each testing function. 

10 So this test unit was essentially divided in to 

11 two separate pieces of tooling, one solely for 

12 pneumatic, the other solely for hydraulic. 

13 And that is when this new inspector 

14 came in, and inspected, and found that they were 

15 missing the tooling, because at that time it was 

16 out at the shop, being turned from one unit in to 

17 two test units. 

18 And then the FAA said, well, if you 

19 don't have the tooling, then all the parts that 

2 0 require this tooling that you've returned to 

21 service must have been in violation of the FARs. 

22 And so they backed it all the way up to 2008, in 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 (202) 234·4433 
42 

1 the Administrator's Original Complaint, which is 

2 every one of these units my client ever released 

3 to service. So the purpose of the argument with 

4 regard to the fact that the OpSpecs were amended 

5 in 2008, was to show that we obviously had the 

6 tooling then, because the inspector then involved 

7 issued the OpSpecs, and he couldn't do so unless 

8 we had the tooling, the manuals, and training, et 

9 cetera, to do so. 

10 Subsequently, a new inspector comes 

11 in, and inspects the facility, one that this 

12 tooling is out being made in to two separate 

13 pieces. Now my client is still in business, its 

14 OpSpecs have not been rewrote, he still has these 

15 capabilities, and it's because he has these two 

16 units in his shop. And so, you know, it's 

17 ultimately our position, if we ever get to trial 

18 that, you know, he always had the tooling to do 

19 the work, and so the Administrator's position is 

20 incorrect. That's what that argument is going 

21 to. 

22 So I'm saying that my witness can say 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
43 

1 that yes, I received this tooling from Paz, and I 

2 modified it in accordance with the drawings which 

3 are attached to Mr. Allen's affidavit, within my 

4 shop, and I was working on it, and on such and 

5 such date I returned it to Paz. And I think 

6 that's a pretty important witness to be able to 

7 put in front of the court, an independent witness 

8 with no dog in this fight, who will say where the 

9 tooling was, why it wasn't in the shop when the 

10 inspector investigated, and what was being done 

11 to it. It's really what this case is about. 

12 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you. 

13 MR. MCDONALD: And that's the witness 

14 I •ve lost, and his records receivers, 

15 travelers, work orders, and things that went with 

16 that business, they're lost. That's evidence that 

17 I no longer can obtain, and that's the basis of 

18 my claim of laches. 

19 JUDGE SULLIVAN: And which witness is 

20 this? 

21 MR. MCDONALD: That would be the owner 

22 of the shop. Mr. it's I'm looking for 

(202) 234·4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234·4433 
44 

1 where I have his name in the affidavit. Oh. Jack 

2 Batista, who is the owner of Ledo. Ledo 

3 Industries. 

4 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Thank you. 

5 Anything else that you would like to add to your 

6 primary argument about laches, before I turn to 

7 the FAA? 

8 MR. MCDONALD: No, Your Honor. 

9 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Mr. Vines, could 

10 you basically highlight for me your response? 

11 MR. VINES: Yes. So with the Agency's 

12 argument, obviously we, under the two elements --

13 first of all, they're slotted as the 

14 affirmative defense of proving laches has the 

15 burden of proving their affirmative defense of 

16 laches, and that requires two elements. That the 

17 FAA brought the action with some sort of delay, 

18 and that that delay resulted in prejudice. 

19 And Judge, that's the first element. 

20 It's the Agency's position that the Respondent 

21 has not effectively presented, or met its burden 

22 in proving the first element by way of the 

(202) 234·4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234·4433 
45 

1 evidence that it's submitted to this court in 

2 support of that first element, and that the 

3 Respondent has not submitted either timelines or 

4 any evidence of when some of these witnesses were 

5 contacted, or attempted to be contacted, as you, 

6 as the Judge noted earlier, by way of the 

7 Agency's Letter of Investigation which was issued 

8 a couple of months after the violations took 

9 place, followed by the Notice of Proposed Civil 

10 Penalty, followed by the Complaint, inclusive of 

11 the five year statute of limitations as required, 

12 or promulgated by I think it ' s 4 9 28 

13 u.s.c. 2462. 

14 Respondent was aware. You' 11 notice 

15 that it would need to begin gathering evidence in 

16 defense of this potential action, and again, the 

17 Respondent has not submitted any timeline, or any 

18 evidence showing when the Respondent reached out, 

19 to try to obtain, gather, and keep this evidence 

20 to prove its case. So we felt, the Agency felt 

21 the Respondent hasn't met its burden with regard 

22 to the first element, as well as the second 

(202) 234·4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 (202) 234-4433 
46 

1 element. So again, Judge, as -- to best as I 

2 can. 

3 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Vines. 

4 Mr. McDonald, I'm going to turn back to you. You 

5 have the right of final reply on the laches issue 

6 as well. Do you have anything else you would 

7 like to add to your primary arguments? 

8 MR. MCDONALD: Yes, Your Honor. Just 

9 ever so briefly. I'd like to point out, we need 

10 to remember where we are, and right now, we are 

11 at the pleading stage. We've raised a --- we've 

12 raised the affirmative defense of laches, which 

13 is a defense that ultimately would have to be 

14 proved at a hearing, and we're not there yet. 

15 The court chose, and asked us to, 

16 asked to treat this as a Motion to Dismiss, which 

17 we have, and we have submitted affidavits in 

18 support of the Motion To Dismiss on the defense 

19 of laches. What I don't want this to turn in to, 

20 by accident, if you will, is a Motion For Summary 

21 Judgment on the defense of laches, because, for 

22 starters, the FAA hasn't filed a Motion For 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOOE ISLANO AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
47 

1 Summary Judgment on the issue. We're not at 

2 issue. It is an affirmative defense, and we may 

3 very well plead it at the hearing, if we get 

4 there. 

5 So I just want to point out to the 

6 court, you know, to remind the court where we are 

7 in the pleadings. It's our position, ever-so8 briefly restated, that the FAA has the burden of 

9 going forward with the evidence based on what 

10 we've provided. 

11 We've shown that the company who did 

12 the work is out of business. We've shown that we 

13 can't locate the witness, and we've shown, as you 

14 can see by the engineering documents, which are 

15 dated in 2011, which is consistent when the 

16 inspectors were at the Respondent's premises, 

17 that the equipment was out being modified. 

18 As I've mentioned before, the courts 

19 have typically been somewhat hesitant to accept 

20 the veracity of a Respondent when not supported 

21 by other evidence or other witnesses, due to 

22 their obvious self -interest in the proceedings, 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
48 

1 and hence, the loss of an independent witness is 

2 a huge loss to a Respondent in any type of FAA 

3 action, whether it's a civil penalty or 

4 certificate action. And that's all I have to say 

5 about it, Your Honor. It's our position that we 

6 have been definitely prejudiced. 

7 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Okay. Let me ask you 

8 this. It's just a procedural point. Are you 

9 saying that the court is premature in its 

10 (Telephonic interference.) 

11 JUDGE SULLIVAN: laches with you 

12 now? Or that there is simply a wide opportunity 

13 for the Respondent to bring the defense of laches 

14 to the court's attention? You know, I have not 

15 heard the argument before, that the court cannot 

16 take and consider the laches any time. But I just 

17 wanted to check in with you on that. You're 

18 saying that it's too soon in this case? 

19 MR. MCDONALD: Well, generally, 

20 affirmative defenses are defenses that aren't 

21 raised by the Complaint, that are defense based 

22 on other evidence which must be proven at a 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
49 

1 hearing. I don't --- there's been many of these 

2 cases where the court, as you, has treated the 

3 motion for dismissal on the basis of laches as a 

4 motion, and has denied it or whatnot. I don't 

5 I just don't want the court, or I'm asking the 

6 court to please not issue an order that is 

7 drafted in such a way, that it essentially grants 

8 summary judgment on the defense of laches. 

9 It may be that at a hearing, if we get 

10 there, that I could put on additional witnesses 

11 and prove the defense of laches at hearing. I 

12 just don't think we're I don't think we're at 

13 the summary judgment phase here. 

14 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Well, it clearly is 

15 not a summary judgment type motion, since the 

16 review in judgment is so different than the 

17 review under any other type of prehearing motion. 

18 The reason I consider laches as early as possible 

19 is because it saves the parties money, in my 

20 opinion. 

21 If there is a viable laches defense 

22 that can be shown early in the proceeding, it 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
50 

1 takes a case off the books for everyone, when, if 

2 there is proof positive that it simply could not 

3 be tried in fairness to the charged party. 

4 There's no, no benefit to spending a year in 

5 discovery, and doing interrogatories, 

6 depositions, and other types of prehearing 

7 litigation, if it's all for naught in the end. 

8 So I think that's my particular focus, 

9 when I want to hear about this as soon as 

10 possible, because if evidence has been lost, 

11 irrevocably, and the party is prejudiced, and 

12 cannot have equal standing with its friend across 

13 the aisle, then we should address that, you know, 

14 rather than later. 

15 But that doesn't mean that I'm not 

16 open to deferring ruling on the question, if, in 

17 fact, a party needs additional time to see if 

18 that is in fact the case. So I just wanted to 

19 kind of mention that, so that it's an explanation 

20 of why I would take it as early as possible, as 

21 opposed to waiting until the time of trial. 

22 It 

(202) 234-4433 

certainly would 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

be a deep 

(202) 234-4433 
51 

1 disappointment to a litigating party, to find out 

2 that the court did not quite agree with its 

3 perception that it had done all it could, and yet 

4 the hearing has been held and there's no more 

5 time, essentially, for the party to look for 

6 witnesses, for example, if a laches defense was 

7 not persuasive. So I like to take that as soon 

8 as possible, if it's timely for the parties 

9 themselves. But that doesn't mean that I'm not 

10 more than happy to push it out too. So hopefully, 

11 that's an explanation that can kind of give you a 

12 better understanding to share with your client. 

13 MR. MCDONALD: Your Honor, I understood 

14 that, quite frankly, from the beginning --- your 

15 motivation. I think you're very clear in that in 

16 our early conversations back in December. I just 

17 don't want to lose --- I think that what we've 

18 presented is sufficient for dismissal based on 

19 both the laches defense and on the statutory 

20 statute of limitations. But I just don't want the 

21 court to inadvertently wipe out any --- but if 

22 the court determines that the case should go on 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
52 

1 to a hearing, that the order is not writ ten in 

2 such a way that it bars me from raising the 

3 statute of limitations defense, and continuing to 

4 try and put that information before the court at 

5 a hearing, if I'm able to obtain additional 

6 evidence. That's all. 

7 JUDGE SULLIVAN: All right. Thank you. 

8 Mr. McDonald, I'd like to ask you, as the moving 

9 party, is there anything else that you would like 

10 to add to your oral argument today? Or any 

11 question you have before we close? 

12 MR. MCDONALD: The answer to both 

13 questions is no, Your Honor. Thank you for the 

14 opportunity. You've been very kind to give us 

15 quite a bit of time to discuss this with you, and 

16 to brief it. 

17 JUDGE SULLIVAN: Thank you. Mr. Vines, 

18 on behalf of the FAA, same question to you, sir. 

19 MR. VINES: Nothing further, Judge. 

20 JUDGE SULLIVAN: I want to thank you 

21 both very much for all of your materials. It's 

22 been a pleasure to read all of your materials, 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 
53 

1 and to be prepared for this very interesting 

2 issue before the court. I want to take a look at 

3 one or two other cases before I make a ruling, 

4 but I will try and get the ruling out as soon as 

5 possible. I'm looking at no later than the end 

6 of this month, at the very latest. 

7 So I will thank you both very much for 

8 your presence today. I will wish you all a very 

9 happy holiday coming up this weekend, and I look 

10 forward to talking with you again, if that is in 

11 fact the case after the ruling is made, going 

12 forward with some or all of the case that is 

13 before the court. So with that, we can go off 

14 the record, and I wish you all a good day. Thank 

15 you. 

16 (Whereupon, at 2:40 

17 teleconference was concluded) 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

(202) 234·4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 

p.m.' the 

(202) 234·4433 
54 

A ------ ahead 6:4 12:21 13:11 attack 35:22 36:17 40:5 brought44:17 

ability 34:2 40:17 16:1 19:13 27:16 28:1 attempted 45:5 burden 33:15 36:13 

able 43:6 52:5 aisle 50:13 attention 18:22 48:14 37:8 44:15,21 45:21 

accept24:11 47:19 allegations 19:17 34:9 attorney 2:20 3:9,11 47:8 

accident 46:20 38:15,16 attorney-advisor 3:14 business 34:6 42:13 

accomplished 29:2 alleged 6:9,19 28:7 Attorneys 2:11 43:16 47:12 

acknowledge 38:9 33:21 authority 14:4 27:3 

action 7:9 9:10,10,12 alleges 6:8 28:8,15 31:9,10,19,22 c 

9:1810:2011:112:3 alleging 37:7 32:21 capabilities 40:16 

12:7 13:22 14:1,5 Allen 34:13,16 Avenue2:5 42:15 

15:5,9 21:1122:15,16 Allen's 43:3 Aviation 1:5 2:4 3:4,11 Capability 39:16 

2514,16,18,20 26:18 allow 31:1 7:13 9:14,14 13:6 careful27:7,18 

27:2 28:20 29:1,2,19 amended 4:9,12, 13,15 aware 4:21 6:6 10:5 CARS 12:6 

32:7,11 33:9 44:17 6:18,22 7:2119:7,8 45:14 case 7:12 8:2,4,8,15 

45:16 48:3,4 34:14 39:15 40:10 15:18 16:4,7,8,14 

actions 6:9 42:4 B 19:1 20:7 29:7 32:18 

add 17:14 24:13,22 amending 27:20 28:2 back 12:1718:12 24:18 32:20 33:20 36:16 

35:14 44:5 46:7 52:10 AMERICA 1:1 37:14 39:12,20 40:14 38:4 43:11 45:20 

additional49: 10 50:17 amount38:14 46:4 51:16 48:18 50:1,18 51:22 

52:5 analogy7:6 backed 41 :22 53:11,12 

address 50:13 analysis 38:17 background 18:17 cases 7:7 9:2,13,20 

addressed 17:17 33:12 announced 26:21 bars 52:2 10:511:20,2112:1,5 

addresses 27:6 answer22:4 24:10,12 based 6:12,20 7:6 12:16,17 13:8 17:21 

addressing 11:7,16 52:12 23:20 41:7 47:9 48:21 23:4,4,8 28:8 30:1 

Administration 2:4 anymore 34:7 51:18 33:13 36:1 49:2 53:3 

administrative 1:19 apologize 18:20 basically20:15 26:14 cause 15:4 16:15 

11:22 16:16 APPEARANCES 2:1 33:7 44:10 certain29:16,17 

Administrator 11:1 appeared 8:6 10:12,15 basis 6:14 16:15 33:15 certainly 10:14 28:11 

14:3 19:21 26:4,14 appearing 3:15 33:18 36:6,14 37:3,3 35:15 36:8 39:19 

30:10 31:8,19 35:20 appears 8:10,14 11:18 38:16 43:17 49:3 50:22 

36:13,18,19 applicable 9:11 12:1 Batista 34:19 44:2 certificate 48:4 

Administrator's 13:15 23:10,21 bears 33:15 cetera 42:9 

14:7,14 15:18,20 applies 14:9 began 40:18 CFR 14:13 20:17 31:17 

17:20 20:20 30:4 37:8 appropriate 8:21 9:1 beginning 51:14 chambers 3:13 

40:10 42:1,19 24:9 behalf2:2,8 52:18 chance 26:1 

adopted 21:22 approved 39:17 40:11 believe 5:3,4,7,8 14:8 charged 50:3 

adopting 26:13 27:19 approximately 26:1 0 22:7 33:4,8,11 check 48:17 

adoption 14:15 April3:17,21,22 4:6,19 benefit 30:16 50:4 chooses 36:17 

Advisor 2:20 6:9,16 Benkin 8:2,6,15 9:21 choosing 30:10 

Aerocomp 7:12 8:1 argue20:6 10:15 12:18 chose 36:18,19 46:15 

9:14 argument3:7 6:17 8:17 Ben kin's 23:4,8,19 24:6 circumstances 37:21 

affidavit 34:10,12,15 9:111:9 13:1414:16 25:16 cite 16:4 

35:13,22 38:5,8 43:3 17:15 18:2,4,819:4 best21:7 22:4,20 46:1 cited7:1213:1,6,819:1 

44:1 32:2,20 35:21 40:1 better 51:12 19:15,21 22:13 

affidavits 46:17 42:3,20 44:6,12 48:15 beyond 14:6,8 40:6 citing 8:1 

affirmative 24:21 44:14 52:10 binding 28: 15 31 :22 civil6:22 7:10 9:10,17 

44:15 46:12 47:2 arguments 46:7 bit 20:10,13 26:8 40:5 9:1711:212:3,7,8,9 

48:20 aside 25:4 52:15 13:17,21,2214:1,6 

afternoon 3:16 asked46:15,16 books 50:1 15:5 16:5,17 17:1 

Agency 19:14 22:8 asking 20:12 22:17 Bowser 13:1 19:18 21:15 22:14 

23:21 25:6 28:5 45:20 28:13 49:5 Box2:12 24:3 25:7,11,14,16,18 

agency's 5:9 18:22 AS0-7 2:4 Brake7:14 9:1413:6 25:20 26:19,22 27:1 

21:13,14 38:3 44:11 assert 14:12 brief 5:17 52:16 28:6,20 29:1 ,2,6, 19 

44:20 45:7 asserting 21:11,18 briefed 10:6 29:2130:332:7,11,13 

ago 6:16 assertion 23:3 briefing4:415:11 38:22 45:9 48:3 

agree 17:10 38:20 51:2 asserts 34:22 briefly 15:1 34:12 41:3 claim 14:12 20:4 22:10 

agreed 4:3 assume 8:14 46:9 47:8 37:3 43:18 

agreeing 17:13 attached 34:13 43:3 bring 48:13 clear 7:22 32:3 40:2 

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc. 

(202) 234-4433 Washington DC www.nealrgross.com 
55 

51:15 4:1 DEPARTMENT 1:1 engaging 22:21 

clearly 11:11 12:2 conversations 18:19 depositions 50:6 engineering 47:14 

29:18 49:14 51:16 detailed 38:13 entertained 7:10 

clever 35:21 copy 15:1 determines 51:22 entirely31:18 

client 11:5 29:7 38:6,7 correct 9:20 13:3 14:17 dialogue21:2 30:18 entitled28:11 31:15 

38:15 39:6 42:2,13 21:17 dicta 17:2,3,9,12 39:16 

51:12 corrected 10:14 difference 29:5,9,13 enumerating 35:10 

client's 6:2 20:16 24:13 correctly 22:11 different 11:19 39:22 enunciated 11:11 

39:3 counsel2:4 10:6 40:20 49:16 equal50:12 

close 52:11 couple45:8 difficult27:14 equipment39:1147:17 

closely 18:4 course 8:22 19:22 direct 18:21 ESQ2:3,9 

Code 12:11 court7:116:13 17:4,6,8 directness 25:4 essentially 14:12 20:18 

codified 4:6 18:16 28:18 30:1 disappointment 51:1 37:22 41:10 49:7 51:5 

Cody 2:20 3:13 32:12 35:9,15 40:6 discovery 50:5 Establishment 39:16 

College 2:6 43:7 45:1 46:15 47:6 discuss 52:15 et42:8 

Columbia 2:5 47:6 48:9,15 49:2,5,6 discussed 8:8 22:6 event39:5 

come 10:518:12 51:2,21,22 52:4 53:2 discussion4:1,3 8:13 ever-so 47:7 

comes 14:5 30:6 42:10 53:13 10:2115:1126:3 30:7 Everson 19:15 

coming 53:9 court's 3:19 6:6 15:13 37:15,18 evidence 36:9,9 37:9 

commenced 7:11 9:10 48:14 dismiss 3:8 4:9,13,15 39:4,5 43:16 45:1,4 

9:13 12:7 courts 28:21 47:18 4:16 6:12 7:2116:13 45:15,18,19 47:9,21 

comment 16:21 17:2,3 current 25:19 17:5 19:8,16 25:1,6 48:22 50:10 52:6 

committed 19:20 currently 7:1 34:14 36:2 46:16,18 evidentiary 36:6,14 

company 34:5 35:16 dismissal49:3 51:18 37:3 

47:11 D dismissed 16:14 33:9 exact39:10 

comparison 9:3 d15:421:8 33:14,18 37:1 example 51:6 

compelling 15:12,13 date 4:5 28:7 43:5 distinction 13: 13 - excerpt 27:8 

23:6 dated 39:20 47:15 divided41:10 excessive 38:3 

Complainant 2:2 dates 4:5 39:11 Docket 3:4 exhibit 39:15 

complaint 4:12,15 6:8,8 David2:9 3:1219:15 document 7:4 29:10 exhibits 39:13,20 

6:11,19,22 7:4,14,22 day53:14 documents 38:2 47:14 expanded 40:16 

8:18 9:15 10:1811:3 deal11 :7 28:9 dog 43:8 explain21:19 22:16 

12:8,10,1414:115:10 dealing 11:19 12:5 27:8 doing 22:4 50:5 41:4 

15:15 19:7,17 20:3,5 36:1 doubt 13:14,14 explains 9:7 

21:10,18 22:14 24:1,8 dealt 23:8 26:3 33:13 drafted 49:7 explanation 50:19 

25:17,21 29:3,8,20 December39:21 51:16 drawing 35:18 51 : 11 

30:2,4,5,11, 13,16 decided 39:1 41:7 drawings 43:2 

32:12 36:3 39:1 40:10 decision 9:22 1 0:22 due 38:2 47:21 F 

42:1 45:10 48:21 25:16 28:18 FAA 3:9 5:2 6:18 8:1,12 

complies 12:10 decisions 14:15 E 16:1919:6,18 24:2 

comply 29:15 deemed 15:13 23:5 earlier 20:8 45:6 26:13,16,21 27:6 

concerning4:16 35:4 early 49:18,22 50:20 28:10,14 30:10,13,15 

concluded 53:17 deep 50:22 51:16 31:8,21 34:16,22 36:4 

conduct40:14 defense 18:13 20:4 easier 5:16 37:13,18 40:15,19 

conference 3:19,20 4:6 24:21 33:6,17,22 36:4 effectively 22:22 44:21 41 :8,18 44:7,17 46:22 

4:19 31:1 36:6,11,15,17 37:2,6 effectuate 31 : 13 47:8 48:2 52:18 

conferences 18:16 37:7,8,19,19 38:1 effort 35:1 FAA's 4:11 6:17 15:11 

conflict 20:15 44:14,15 45:16 46:12 either 22:13 32:3 35:14 16:2,3 19:7,16 27:18 

Congress 32:4 46:13,18,21 47:2 45:3 38:10 39:8 

consider48:16 49:18 48:13,2149:8,11,21 element 44:19,22 45:2 FAA-2014-08071 :5 3:5 

consideration 27:7,18 51:6,19 52:3 45:22 46:1 facilities 40:13,21 

considered 10:8 26:17 defenses 48:20,20 elements 44:12,16 facility 34:3 42:11 

consistent 20:20 25:15 deferring 50:16 enabling 10:1,16,21 fact 20:7 22:6 42:4 

47:15 definitely 48:6 11:1214:1115:8 50:17,18 53:11 

contacted 45:5,5 delay 16:16 38:4 44:17 20:19,22 21:9,21 facts 33:16,21 37:7 

continued 3:7,20 44:18 enacted 8:12 22:5 failed 25:7 33:19 37:10 

continuing 52:3 demonstrate 33:9 enactment20:21 22:1 39:6 

convened 1:12 3:6,17 denied 49:4 enforcement 7:9 26:18 fairly21:6 38:12 

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc. 

(202) 234-4433 Washington DC www.nealrgross.com 
56 

fairness 50:3 gather 45:19 issuance26:19 

familiar 30:20 gathering 45:15 idea 11:14 issue 17:4 18:11 22:9 

FARs41:21 general16:21 39:18 identified 11:20 15:3 24:2,3,19 25:7 28:5 

fault 39:8 generally 30:20 48:19 20:16 30:9 28:10,11,15 31:19,22 

fax 2:7,15 Georgia 2:6 identify 5:2 15:9 33:6 36:21 46:5 47:1,2 

FDMS 1:4 getting23:14 immediately 30:17 49:6 53:2 

Federal2:4 8:14 11:12 give6:111:1416:919:3 important 5:15 43:6 issued 8:2 12:18 20:6 

12:1126:2,9,15 30:8 21:6 33:2151:11 inadvertently 51:21 21:16 24:8 30:12,17 

30:8,18 37:14 52:14 incident 6:15 25:8 34:16 42:7 45:7 

feel22:20 given 32:21 incidents 6:20 issues 10:6 

felt 30:15 45:20,20 giving 33:16 38:14 include 40:17 issuing 6:21 

fight43:8 go6:411:512:20 13:11 inclusive 45:10 

file 12:13 19:1 30:11,13 14:22 16:119:12,13 incorrect 42:20 J 

filed4:10,18 5:2,12 22:21 27:15 28:1 independent 43:7 48:1 J.E1:18 

6:10,117:5 9:1616:7 34:11 37:9 51:22 indicated 20:8 33:4,5 Jack 34:19 44:1 

17:119:18 24:9 25:6 53:13 Industries 44:3 Jay 34:13 

29:8,22 30:1 38:11 going6:611:10 15:19 informal 31 : 1 Johnson 12:22 

39:15 46:22 17:2218:1,6,7 23:14 information 20:13 joking 25:4 

filing 7:14 11:2,3 12:7,9 24:18,20 26:15,17 26:11 38:14 52:4 Judge 1:19 3:3 4:22 5:3 

14:5 15:10 16:16 24:1 31:13 37:13 42:20 informed 10:16 5:5,7,10,21,22 7:18 

25:17,21 29:3 30:5 46:4 47:9 53:11 initial7:13 38:21 8:2,6,15 9:6,19,21 

35:13 39:6 good 3:16 15:4 16:15 initially 36:20 10:9,12,15 12:12,15 

filings 5:4,9 53:14 initiate 21:10 28:20 12:17,20 13:3,7,10 

final 8:13 10:20 24:19 grant 11:8 initiated 14:115:6 14:2,10,18,2115:19 

26:3,12 46:5 grants 49:7 25:14 26:18 16:1,9 17:10,17,22 

find 27:14 34:6 39:7 grounds 33:10 initiating 38:4 18:6,15,2119:2,6,9 

51:1 guess 10:4,8 initiation 9:17 10:18,19 19:12,14 20:3,6,8,9 

finding 17:8 guidance 28:11 31:20 11:113:2214:415:9 21:4,5,12,13,17 22:12 

fine7:10 31:22 20:2 22:16 25:17,20 22:19 23:1,4,7,8,13 

fingernails 16:20 29:1,2,19 30:5 32:7 23:18,19 24:6,10,11 

finished 6:4 H 32:11 24:16,17 25:15 26:1,7 

first24:18 27:1 32:3 happened 6:7 inquiry 40:7 27:10,15,22 28:14 

44:13,19,22 45:2,22 happy24:11 51:10 53:9 inspected 41:14 29:4,12 30:7 31:3,7 

five 5:13 7:11 8:17,21 hear 5:6 50:9 inspector40:20 41:13 31:12 32:2,17 33:2 

9:11 23:9,22 45:11 heard 33:12 48:15 42:6,1043:10 34:1137:11,17 39:14 

flexible 5:20 hearing 22:10 46:14 inspectors 47:16 40:3 43:12,19 44:4,9 

Florida 2:13 47:349:1,9,1151:4 inspects 42:11 44:19 45:6 46:1,3 

focus 50:8 52:1,5 interesting 53:1 48:7,1149:14 52:7,17 

followed 45:9,10 Hearings 1:2 3:13 interference 23:12 52:19,20 

following 14:15 held 12:2,6 51:4 27:21 37:16 48:10 judgment46:21 47:1 

follows 18:4 help11:4 interpret 31:20 49:8,13,15,16 

footnotes 17:11,11 helpful4:4 interpretation 13: 16 July 1:8 3:5 39:17,21 

force 30:13 hesitant47:19 20:21 28:12,16 32:1 June4:11,147:21 

forth 6:13 38:18 highlight 5:14 6:1 33:7 interpreted 24:8 28:19 38:11,13 

forward 37:9 47:9 53:10 44:10 32:12 

53:12 historic 11:16 interpreting 7:7 9:2 K 

found 7:14 16:15 35:6 history 11:11 11:2117:21 keep45:19 

35:14 41:14 holiday 53:9 interrogatories 50:5 kind 18:3,13 50:19 

four 34:16 Honor 9:9 10:5 25:5 interrupt 21: 13 51:11 52:14 

frankly 51:14 30:21 31:14 32:16 interrupting 18:18 know 9:22 10:6,7 11:9 

friend 50:12 33:1 35:8 39:9 40:1 invading 6:17 17:5,17 27:6,7,13 

front 15:1 16:11 43:7 41:4 44:8 46:8 48:5 investigated 43:10 28:20 33:7 36:22 

fully 33:12 51:13 52:13 investigation 34:17 42:16,18 47:6 48:14 

function 41:9 HONORABLE 1:18 38:7,9, 12,17 39:2 50:13 

further22:21 52:19 hooking 16:20 45:7 

future 39:5 hopefully 51:10 involved 42:6 L 

huge 29:13 48:2 involving 15:5 L2:20 3:13 

G hydraulic 41 :6,12 irrevocably 50:11 laches 18:2,13 24:20 

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc. 

(202) 234-4433 Washington DC www.nealrgross.com 
57 

33:3,6,1 0, 14,17,22 34:22 38:11 52:21 ,22 N oral52:10 

36:4,15,21 37:2,19,20 matter 1:4 3:4 19:15 name 44:1 orally 18:9 

38:1 43:18 44:6,14,16 34:4 36:7,8 37:1 named 34:18 order 4:7 7:5 11:7 17:6 

46:5,12,19,2148:11 McDonald 2:9,10,10 naught 50:7 40:13 49:6 52:1 

48:13,16 49:3,8,11 '18 3:12 4:20 5:12,20 6:5 need 15:16 35:1 38:21 orders 23:20 43:15 

49:21 51:6,19 8:20 9:7 10:4,10 45:15 46:9 original6:8 42:1 

language 9:8 25:13 11:1812:13,19,22 needs 50:17 originally6:10,1141:5 

32:9 13:5,9,1214:8,17,19 negotiations 28:21 owner43:21 44:2 

latest 53:6 15:17,2216:3,12 neither 22:13 law1:192:114:10,13 17:1618:1,5 24:17 new 4:5 41:7,13 42:10 p 

32:18,20 25:2 26:5,6 27:5,12 noise 18:18 P·R·O·C·E·E·D·I·N·G·S 

Ledo44:2,2 27:17 28:2 29:11 normally 18:16 3:1 

left 5:8 30:20 31:5,11,14 note 3:17 5:11 16:19,21 p.m 1:13 3:2,21 53:16 

legal26:18 31:21 32:15 33:1,11 35:7 noted 45:6 P.02:12 

let's 14:22 20:13 26:7 39:9,22 40:4 43:13,21 notice 1:134:116:21 page13:4,819:3,10,13 

33:3 37:15 44:8 46:4,8 48:19 9:1611:212:214:5 26:10,11,16 27:10,13 

Letter34:17 38:7,9,12 51:13 52:8,12 16:4,16,22 19:7,18 28:1 34:14,15 37:21 

39:2 45:7 mean 30:17 33:13 20:2,7 21:15 22:9,13 papers 18:18 

limit8:16 18:10 50:15 51:9 24:3,9 25:7,1126:19 paragraph 15:6 27:8,9 

limitation 22:8 29:17 meaning 32:12 26:22 28:6 29:6,21 27:17 34:15 

limitations 7:6,15 13:21 meet 13:18 30:3 32:13 38:22 45:9 Park 2:6 

20:2 23:10,22 27:9,19 memoranda 7:13 45:14 part30:22 34:15 37:22 

28:4 45:11 51:20 52:3 memorandum 4:10,13 Noticed 12:8 particular 8:3,4,15 11:8 

limited 24:1 4:15 number 19:3 27:11 11:10,16 14:2215:2,8 

line3:1914:15 mention 50:19 numbers 27:13 17:14 21:14 24:19 

list39:16 40:16 mentioned 6:15 10:11 26:12,14 29:7 33:20 

listed 4:20 23:5 47:18 0 35:4 37:15,18 38:8 

listening 18:21 merely 17:8 oath 35:9 40:14,17,21,22 50:8 

litigant 15:20 met 37:5 44:21 45:21 obligations 37:6 parties 3:6,22 4:3 5:12 

litigating 51:1 Miami 2:13 observer 3:15 49:19 51:8 

litigation 50:7 mind 13:15 obtain 43:17 45:19 52:5 parts41:19 

little 20:10,13 26:8 40:5 minimum 36:10 obtaining 39:5 party4:18 18:19 50:3 

locate 34:2,20 35:2,11 minute 16:10 obvious 47:22 50:11,17 51:1,5 52:9 

35:12 47:13 minutes 5:14 obviously 42:5 44:12 passage 34:1 

long 21:6 36:22 misread 8:5 occur 10:20 passed6:1410:111:13 

longer 43:17 missing 35:5 41:15 occurred 6:20 25:9 32:4 

look 16:8 25:12 28:18 mission 31:13 occurring 6:9 Paz 1:5 3:4,10 43:1,5 

29:11 33:13 51:5 53:2 modified 39:11 41 :2 occurs 15:7 penalties 13:21 

53:9 43:2 47:17 October 6:10,11 penalty6:229:1711:3 

looking 7:20 34:12 moment 6:15 office 1:2 2:4 3:13,14 12:9 13:17 14:6 15:5 

43:22 53:5 money49:19 4:10 8:3 16:5,1717:119:19 

looks 36:4 month 53:6 Oh29:1144:1 21:16 22:14 24:3 25:8 

lose 51:17 months45:8 Okay4:22 5:10,22 6:5 25:1126:1927:1,2 

loss 48:1,2 motion 3:7,8,20 4:2,5,9 9:1912:20 13:10 28:6 29:6,21 30:3 

lost 18:14 34:2,7,8 4:13,14,16 5:13 6:13 14:18,2116:1,10 18:5 32:14 35:9 39:1 45:10 

35:19 43:14,16 50:10 7:2111:715:1416:13 19:12 23:1 26:7 27:15 48:3 

lot26:1130:17 17:5 19:8 24:15 25:1 31:7 32:17 33:2 40:3 perception 51:3 

25:3,6 33:16 34:9,14 43:12 44:4,9 48:7 performed 35:16,18 

M 39:15 46:16,18,20,22 open 50:16 period 8:18,21 9:1,11 

M 2:9 3:12 49:3,4, 15,17 opinion 17:8 21:1,19 10:2,17 25:22 28:5 

maintains 7:3 motions 36:2 40:6 22:2 28:9 29:5,9,18 30:11,1431:132:6 

making 9:3 13:1319:5 motivation 51 : 15 31:21 35:7 49:20 perjury 35:10 

36:8 40:1 move 24:20 opinions 23:19 24:6 persuasive 51:7 

manager 39:18 moved6:1219:16 opportunity 48:12 phase49:13 

manuals 40:12 42:8 34:19 52:14 phone 18:17 

material15:12 26:14 moves 36:13 opposed 12:6,11 32:13 picked 17:6 

39:20 moving 4:17 52:8 50:21 pieces41:11 42:13 

materials 4:4 32:22 mute 18:17 OpSpecs 42:4,7,14 place 22:11 31:2 45:9 

I 

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc. 

(202) 234-4433 Washington DC www.nealrgross.com 
Plaintiff 29:16 

plea 28:21,21 

plead 47:3 

pleading 27:1 38:21 

46:11 

pleadings 47:7 

please 6:4 49:6 

pleasure 52:22 

plenty 31:5 

pneumatic 41:6,12 

point 11:1618:10 24:6 

36:12 40:19 46:9 47:5 

48:8 

portion 24:14 25:1 30:9 

position 6:2 7:3 13:15 

14:317:18 20:1,12,14 

20:16 21:14 22:20 

23:2 25:15 31:8,21 

32:15 36:12 40:7 

42:17,19 44:20 47:7 

48:5 

positive 50:2 

possible 22:1 49:18 

50:10,20 51:8 53:5 

possibly 39:7 40:1,6 

potential 34:17,18 

45:16 

power 14:7 

practice 11:22 14:13 

21:22 28:3 

practices 13:17 

preceded 10:21 20:21 

pre hearing 49:17 50:6 

prejudice 36:16 37:4 

44:18 

prejudiced 37:1 48:6 

50:11 

premature 48:9 

premises 47:16 

prepared 53:1 

presence 53:8 

present2:18 3:12 

presentation 5:17,19 

presented 38:6 44:21 

51:18 

preserving 39:4 

pretty 5:20 43:6 

prevails 17:20 

primary 18:8 44:6 46:7 

printed 27:13 

prior6:21 21:22 22:5 

36:1 

problem 3:1816:20 

17:12 

procedural48:8 

proceeding 15:21 

49:22 

proceedings 47:22 

(202) 234-4433 

Processes 39:17 

proffer35:15 

promulgated 45:12 

prong 11:9 

proof 40:16 50:2 

propose 13:17 

proposed6:21 9:16 

11:2 12:2,8 14:6 16:5 

16:17 17:119:18 

21:15 22:14 24:3 25:7 

25:11 26:19,22 28:6 

29:6,21 30:3 32:13 

38:22 45:9 

proposition 9:15 

prove 37:9 45:20 49:11 

proved40:15 46:14 

proven 48:22 

provide 36:5,14 

provided 10:2 32:18,20 

38:13,19 39:3 47:10 

provides 8:17 

providing 30:12 37:2 

proving 33:16 36:7 

44:14,15,22 

publication 26:12 

publicly 26:21 

published 8:13 

pull16:10 

pure 17:2,3 

purpose 42:3 

pursuant 1:12 28:4 

push 51:10 

put 18:16 43:7 49:10 

52:4 

reading 10:13 21:20 

real 29:12 

reality 11:17 

really 29:22 31:14 

43:11 

reason 40:22 49:18 

recall22:7, 11 30:22 

39:10,12 

receive 30:1,2 

received 4:8,14 29:7 

38:7,10 43:1 

receivers 43:14 

recodification 32:8 

recognized 5:4,8 

record 3:3,10,12 18:3 

28:1 53:14 

records 34:7 35:17 

43:14 

refer26:15 

reference 10:1 17:6 

referring 12:17 25:10 

refiling 30:3 

reflect 28:4 

reflective 21:21 

regard31:16,17 42:4 

45:21 

regarding 18:2,11,12 

18:22 35:17 

Region 2:5 

Regional2:4 

Register 11:12 26:2,9 

26:16 30:8,8,18 37:14 

regulation 19:22 20:16 

Regulations 12:11 

Q 

question 5:1 7:19,20 

21:4 22:4 24:10 25:4 

28:14 34:21 37:12 

50:16 52:11,18 

_ released 42:2 

relevant40:9 

relied 8:8 

questions 5:18,18 6:3 

20:11 52:13 

quick 29:12 

quite 17:18 24:5 51:2 

51:14 52:15 

quote 15:4,7 26:17,17 

26:20 38:1,4 

quoting 7:9 

R 

raised 10:7 33:6 37:20 

46:11,1248:21 

raising 36:20 52:2 

rationale 38:16 

reached 9:21 45:18 

read 5:11 8:4 21:20 

26:2 30:21 36:1 39:19 

52:22 

relying 21:7 

remains 31:9 

remember46:10 

remind 47:6 

removed6:19 

renewing 6:7 

repair40:1441:8 

repeat 21:3 

repeated 32:10 

reply 4:15 7:13,22 13:4 

13:8 24:19 46:5 

represented 3:9,11 

request 11:8 

require 16:22 41:20 

required 16:18 20:2 

22:9 28:5,19,22 40:13 

45:11 

requirement 12:13 24:2 

25:18 

requirements 13:18 

36:10 41:8 

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc. 

Washington DC 

requires 13:22 20:5 

21:15 25:16,20,21 

29:16,18 44:16 

research 22:22 

reserve 18:1 

respond 5:16 18:8 

22:22 40:7 

58 

Respondent 1:6 2:8 

3:10 7:2 19:16,19 

21:18,20 23:5 30:16 

33:15,19,21 34:10,20 

36:5 44:20 45:3,14,17 

45:18,21 47:20 48:2 

48:13 

Respondent's 3:7 4:2,9 

4:12,16 19:8 20:4 

23:3 24:14 34:18 40:8 

40:21 47:16 

Respondents 36:20 

responding 25:3 

response 4:12 6:18 7:2 

15:14,18 16:2,3 18:10 

18:2219:7 23:3 24:14 

28:17 35:3,21 44:10 

responsibility 39:4 

responsive 34:22 38:11 

rest 18:2 

restated 4 7:8 

result 3:20 12:9 33:17 

resulted 44:18 

results 38:17 

returned 41:20 43:5 

review 15:14 49:16,17 

Revision 39:17 

rewrote 42:14 

right9:6 13:519:4,9,13 

22:12 23:1 24:19 

28:15 31:3 39:10 46:5 

46:10 52:7 

rise 33:16,21 

route 22:21 

rule 10:20 14:4,16,20 

16:1317:20 19:17 

22:3 30:12 

rules 8:14 11:20,22 

13:1614:13 21:21 

22:4 26:3,12 28:3,12 

31:20 

ruling 31:10,11,12,16 

50:16 53:3,4,11 

running 16:6 26:10 

___ _.s 

saves 49:19 

saying 20:18 42:22 

48:9,18 

says7:815:1221:9 

27:6 37:22 

www.nealrgross.com 
59 

scope 14:7 stage 46:11 33:234:1137:11,17 31:6 34:1 35:13 40:19 

SEC 12:22 stale 19:17 36:3 39:14 40:3 43:12,19 41:15 48:16 50:17,21 

second 45:22 stand 9:14 44:4,9 46:3 48:7,11 51:5 52:15 

section 7:8,16 8:7,11 standing 50:12 49:14 52:7,17,20 timeline 45:17 

14:13 17:14,19 20:14 start23:15 39:4 summarily 33:14,18 timelines 45:3 

20:17 21:8 23:20 28:2 starters 46:22 summarizing 7:8 timeliness 18:11 24:22 

31:1832:5 starting 4:17 26:9 summary 17:3 36:2 timely 25:3 51:8 

sections 26:2 starts7:1527:17 462047:149:8,13,15 title 29:10 

see 36:4 47:14 50:17 state 34:19 superseded 8:9,10 today 3:5 26:4 52:10 

seeing 38:5 statement 35:4 37:22 supplant 38:20 53:8 

self-interest 4 7:22 states 1:1 15:4 25:5 supplemental4:3 today's 4:5 

send 5:21 27:12 28:16 34:16 support8:17 32:19 tooling 34:3 40:9,11,12 

sent39:13 41:1 static23:15,16 33:22 36:10 45:2 40:2241:1,4,9,11,15 

separate41:9,1142:12 stating 20:11 46:18 41:19,20 42:6,8,12,18 

serve 38:20 station 41:8 supported 34:9 47:20 43:1,9 

service 41:21 42:3 statute7:5,7,15,16 9:3 supporting 37:7 38:17 top27:7 

set 4:4 6:13 9:810:1,16,2111:12 sure 21:5 24:5 40:9 training 42:8 

seven 19:11,13 12:3,1013:19,21 symbiotic 21:1 transcript 18:3 

share 51:12 14:11,19,2215:2,8 systems 41 :6 TRANSPORTATION 

shop 41:16 42:16 43:4 16:617:19 20:1,5,19 1:1 

43:9,22 20:22 21:9,15,21 22:1 T travelers 43:15 

show 35:1,5 36:13 37:6 23:9,11,22 25:12,19 take5:13,17,18,21 31:1 treat46:16 

42:5 27:19 29:15,18 32:1,4 48:16 50:20 51:7 53:2 treated 49:2 

showing 27:14 36:5,8 32:8 45:11 51:20 52:3 taken 22:11 tremendous 38:14 

45:18 statutes 9:4 12:6 28:16 takes 50:1 trial42:17 50:21 

shown 33:8 47:11,12 28:19 32:10 talk 20:10,13 26:7 33:3 tried 50:3 

47:13 49:22 statutorily 28:22 talked 20:19 32:5 trigger 39:3 

shuffling 18:18 statutory 31:13 51:19 talking 12:16 29:15 triggering 22:15 

signature 39:19 steps 35:10 30:19 37:12,18 5310 trumps 14:12,1917:20 

signed 39:18 stop7:5,1812:313:18 talks 32:10 try 35:2 40:2 45:19 52:4 

similar 25:13 15:19 16:5 23:14 teleconference 1:12 53:4 

simply 10:1917:18 27:22 53:17 trying 9:2 

18:1120:11,12 36:21 subject 34:4 35:9 telephone 3:6,19 4:1 turn 18:7 24:18 37:13 

48:12 50:2 submitted 45:1,3,17 Telephonic 23:12 27:21 37:15 44:6 46:4,19 

sir5:5 6:4 7:1913:11 46:17 37:16 48:10 turned41:16 

19:13 27:15 52:18 subsection 8:11 15:3 tell11 :5 27:3 two 6:14,20 8:12,22 9:9 

sit 39:10 21:8 ten5:14 9:1210:2,17,2211:19 

slotted 44:13 subsequent 28:8 29:8 test41:5,10,17 12:14 13:8,20 15:6 

Smith 2:20 3:13 40:19 testimony 35:8 36:9 16:1717:119:19 

solely 38:3 41:11,12 subsequently 11: 13 testing 41:9 21:10 22:6,8,9 24:2,4 

somewhat 47:19 39:21 42:10 thank5:10 12:20 13:10 25:8 28:6 29:13 30:11 

soon 48:18 50:9 51:7 substantively 29:5 24:12 33:2 43:12 44:4 30:13 31:5 32:6 34:14 

53:4 sufficient 12:3 13:18 46:3 52:7,13,17,20 40:8 41:11,17 42:12 

sorry 5:5 15:22 18:15 16:5 35:5 51:18 53:7,14 42:15 44:12,16 53:3 

21:13 23:13 31:17 suggest 17:18 thing 4:21 9:8 29:16 two-prong 40:4 

32:19 36:3 suggesting 8:20,22 things 40:8 43:15 type31:10 38:2148:2 

sort 44:17 suit 34:4 think5:1411:10,15,15 49:15,17 

Southern 2:5 SULLIVAN 1:18 3:3 13:1,1315:17 17:16 types 11:19 50:6 

specific 15:15 19:3 4:22 5:5,10,22 7:18 23:16 29:12 31:15,18 typically 17:12 29:14 

23:11 9:6,19 10:9,12 12:12 33:12 36:6 40:5 43:5 47:19 

specifically 7:20 12:16 12:15,20 13:3,7,10 45:12 49:12,12 50:8 ------

14:14 15:10 22:15 14:2,10,18,2115:19 51:15,17 u 

25:5,10 26:8 16:1,917:10,22 18:6 thought 35:20 u.s.c 6:13 7:3,7,16 8:7 

specified 10:19 19:2,9,12 20:9 21:5 three 34:15 8:10 9:4,414:915:3 

specifies 7:16 21:17 22:12 23:1,13 tiered 27:19 16:6,22 17:7,19 20:5 

specify 10:17 24:11,17 26:1,7 27:10 time 3:18 4:5,8 6:1,7 20:14 21:7 22:6 23:20 

spend 6:6 27:15,22 29:4 30:7 8:18,21 9:110:3,17 24:7 25:12,13,19 

spending 50:4 31:3,7,12 32:2,17 24:16 25:22 29:17 28:10 31:16 32:1,5,9 

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc. 

(202) 234-4433 Washington DC www.nealrgross.com 
45:13 

ultimately 16:14 42:17 

46:13 

unable 34:20 35:6,12 

unavailable 38:2 

unaware 8:7,16 

unclearly 40:2 

understand 9:20 14:10 

28:13 41:7 

understanding 14:16 

22:5 23:8,19 51:12 

understood51:13 

unit41:10,16 

United1:128:16 

units 40:14,18 41:17 

42:2,16 

unreasonable 38:3 

use40:11 

utilizing 8:18 26:22 

--- v 

v9:412:2213:1 

Vanguard 16:7 

various 9:13 

veracity 4 7:20 

versus 24:1 

viable 37:6 49:21 

view36:1 

Vines 2:3 3:10 4:22 5:3 

5:7 18:7,9, 14,15 19:2 

19:6,10,14 21:3,12 

22:3,19 23:7,14,18 

24:16 44:9,11 46:3 

52:17,19 

violation 15:7 22:10 

24:4 28:7 32:6 41:21 

violations 6:19 19:20 

45:8 

visited 40:20 

Volume 26:9 37:14 

---"fi__ - -

wait6:3 

waiting 50:21 

want 5:16,18 46:19 47:5 

49:5 50:9 51:17,20 

52:20 53:2 

wanted 8:5 48:17 50:18 

wants 11:5 

wasn't43:9 

way 6:3 23:22 27:13 

41:22 44:22 45:6 49:7 

52:2 

we're 3:3 8:22 11:19 

13:13 2.3:14 24:20 

29:14 36:22 46:14 

47:1 49:12,12 

we've 30:9,19 33:11,12 

(202) 234-4433 

35:12 37:5 46:11 '11 

47:10,11,12,13 51:17 

Wednesday 1:8 3:5 

weekend 53:9 

went43:15 

whatnot 49:4 

wide 48:12 

William 2:3 3:10 

willing 10:14 

wipe 51:21 

wish 53:8,14 

witness 34:8,8,18,18 

35:5,11 '12 42:22 43:6 

43:7,13,19 47:13 48:1 

witnesses 34:2 35:2 

38:2 45:4 47:21 49:10 

51:6 

wondering 11:4 

work 34:3 35:16,17 

40:17 42:19 43:15 

47:12 

working 40:18 43:4 

writing 18:9 

written 32:21 52:1 

wrong 9:21 

X 

y 

year 8:18 10:2,17 13:20 

15:7 22:6,8 23:9,22 

24:2 30:11,14 32:6 

45:11 50:4 

years6:14,217:11 8:12 

1701 2:5 

19 4:14 7:21 12:18 

1990 8:13 26:2 30:10 

1992 8:12 10:2 32:4 

1st 3:5 

____ c2 

2 28:3 

2:40 53:16 

2002 16:7 

2005 8:2 

2005-21064 8:2 

2008 6 9 39:12,18,21,21 

40:15 41:22 42:5 

20116:10,16 38:14 

39:13 47:15 

20146:12 

20151:8 3:6,17,21,22 

4:7,11,11,14,19 7:21 

34:14 38:12 39:15 

208 28:3 

22nd 3:21,22 4:19 

23rd 4:7 38:13 

2462 7:8,17 8:7 9:5,12 

23:21 25:13 45:13 

2754826:10 

27553 28:1 

27556 26:16 37:21 

27572 26:11 

27th 6:10,16 

28 7:7,16 8:7 9:4 23:20 

25:13 45:12 

29 7:3 

8:21,229:11,1210:22 - 3 

12:14 16:17 17:2 3 8:11 16:19,21 

19:19 21:10 22:9 24:4 301(d)(7) 19 22 

25:8 28:6 31:5 30337 2:6 

-------:o--- - 305-643-4990 2:15 

z 305-643-53132:14 

0 

1 

1 1:8 

1:301:13 3:21 

1:33 3:2 

1:40:06 8:1 

13 28:3 

13.20811:2212:413:19 

14:1416:14,18,21 

17:5,21,21 20:17 25:5 

31:16,18 

13.208(d) 20:1 

1420:17 31:17 

1471 8:11 

1471(a)(3) 32:5 

154:11 34:13 39:15 

33166-9428 2:13 

3M 13:1 

4 

4031:17 

404-305-5200 2:6 

404-305-5223 2:7 

4619:21 24:7 

46301 6:13 7:4 9:4,12 

14:9 15:316:6,22 

17:7,19 20:5 21:8 

22:6 24:7 25:19 28:10 

32:1 

46301(d)(7) 20:14 32:9 

496:12 8:10 9:414:9,13 

15:3 16:6,2217:7,19 

20:5,14 21:7 22:6 

24:7 25:12,19 28:10 

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc. 

Washington DC 

60 

31:16 32:1,5,8 45:12 

5 

54:1138:11 

55 26:9,15 37:14 

.. - 6 

669122 2:12 

715:421:8 

7th 6:11 

8 39:17 

7 

8 

9 

www.nealrgross.com 
61 

C E R T I F I C A T E 

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript 

In the matter of: Paz Aviation 

Before: DOT OH 

Date: 07-01-15 

Place: teleconference 

was duly recorded and accurately transcribed under 

my direction; further, that said transcript is a 

true and accurate record of the proceedings. 

Court Reporter 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 WoNW.nealrgross.com