05/25/201 0 1B:1 4 FA X202493514 2 FA A^ DM S 0001/01 1

U.S
. DEPARTMBN

TOFTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERALftVlATIONRDMINI3TRATT0 N
I nth eMfttte r

of : * DOCJce t No
. /ij^ift Ai t . , l ^ 

### GAH T>T
. T,F,E , * FA AEI RNo
. ^V\\l^\'^DOb K

f^tf/tf

- QS'BC ' Responflsnt , * * Th eHon

- Kichar dC
. Goodwi n
k k * - k

* * COMPLRINftNT ' 3 RESPONS E T O RirsPONnF.NT ' 5 CLAI M FO R ATTORH Y FEa S UNDE R EA.T A COME S NO Wth e Cojnplainanr, , federa l Aviatio n idm i nisi : rat i o n (FAA) , b yan d throug hCounsel , an d i n it s answe r 1 0 Respondent' s Applicatio n fo r Attorney' s Fee s an d Othe r E^tpense s pursuan t r. o th e Equa l acces s t o Justic e Ac t (EAJA ) , 5 U.S. C S 50 4 e t ZG':I
. , offer s th e fol. l owina : •?TATFHFNT O F TH E CAS E Th e FA Aallege d tha t Gar yJ . Le e qn d hi s brother , Michae l P . Lea , uer a paasangar s o n a Southwes t fligh t fro mPhoenix , Arizona , t o Ph.rladelphia , Pennsylvania , o n Februar y22 , 2005 , an d tha t thei r conduc t (ver yiQU d tal k poppare d wit hprofinity ) wa a o f suc hmagnitud e tha t i t interfere d wit hth e J'.I.J.gn t attendants ' dutie s baoous e the yha d t o focu s thei r attentio n o n th e brother s t o th e excVusio n o f thai r sarot yrelate d duties , an d tha t th e Le e Brothers ' interferenc e uic hth e fJ.igh t antenciant' s dutie s conatitute d a violatio n o f Sectio n 171.58 0 o f th e Federa l Aviacio n Regulation s (FARs) . Th e Administrativ e La wjudg e (ALJ ) initia l decisio n foun d tha t Michae l P . Le e ha d violate d th e r».R3 bu t als o foun d tha t eve n thoug h Gar yJ . I.e

« participate d i n lou d an d profanity-fille d r.3]i;in g wit hhi s brother , hi s behavio r u^j s les s seriou s an d di d no t warran t a . findin g n l
a violation . .-..,., . „^, „ , 

# :G£IVE D OC T•1^ 200 6 

# -cARIM G DOCKE T

### 05/25/201 0 1G;1 4 FAX 202493514 2 FA A+ DM S @|002/01 1

PREVAILING PARTY AKI D SrjHST££riAL_JUST_IF.ICiTJO N I n hi s application , Gar yJ . Lee , the Applicant , request s raea.and expenoe s unde r 5 U.S.C . 5 504<a)11) , "i n th e abov e matte r I n whic hn e wa s a pi-eva.ilin

g part y.. . o n th e ground s tha t th e agenc yc positio n i n th e proceedin g wa a no t suhpranrlall yjustilie d and tha t cher » ar e n o Bpccia l circumstanre H whic hwoul d mak e a n awar d unjuot. " Bligibilic y unde r th e EAJAfo r a fe e awar d arisin g ou t o f a n agenc yadjudicatio n require s tha t th e applican t b e a prevailin g party . However , a n awar d cfl n b e denied , th e statut e providac , i f ther e i e a showin g tha t th e agency' s posirlc mwa B subctanciall yjustifie d o r tha t specia l circumstance s mak e a n awar d unjust . A n agenc ycha t conduce s a n adversaryadjudicatio n Rha] 1 award , t o a prevailin g part yothe r than the Unite d State.R , fee s an a othe r ejcponeea incurre d b ytha t part yi n connectio n wit htha t prQcaadtng , unles a th e adjudicativ e office r c f the agenc yfind s tha t th e positio n o f the agenc ywa s subscanrial.T yjustlrle d o r tha t specia l circumstance s mAk ea n awar d unjust , whethe r o r no t th e poeitio n o f th e agenc ywa a aubatantiall yjustifie d shal l b e determine d o n th e basi s o f the administrativ e record , a s a whole , whic hi s mad e i n th e adversar y adjudicatio n fo r wnlc hfee s an d othe r sxpenae e ar c =ou<jht . Th e FA Aaoe e no t conzitu t

tha t Garyj , Le e i a the prevailin g part y i n thl = cas e bu t th e critica l iesu e fo r th e AL J t o decid e i n detarmlnin g ai

i UAJAclai mi a whethe r Che acency' s poBicio n wa s cubscantiall yjustifie d a t eac hacaqe o f th e proceedings . Th e Suprem e Cour t ha s hel d tha t the "subecatit.l.an. yjustiried " requiremen t applie s t o Ch e merit s o r th e government' s position , and can b e satisfie d i f ther e i s a "genuin e dispute " o r i f th « agency' s

### 05/25/201 0 ie;1 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 1^003/01 1

poaicio n ca n b e "juHtifle d t o a degre e cha t coul d satisf ya reaconabl e person, " Th etes t o f whethe r th e governcnene' e positio n i e suhstanclall yjustifie a I s eeeentiall yon a o E reasonablenee e i n lawand fact . A c Buch , aqanc ycounse l "ma yavoi d a

n award " b

yshowin g r.ha

t th e agency' 5 positio n wa s reasonabl e i n lawan d fact . .?ti

e U.5
. v . liO^tl ^ Boxe s o f

Bons JBeef , 72 6 F
- 2 d 14S 1 (TenthCircui t 1984) , cert , denied , -163 U.S . 32 5 (1954) , wher e the cour t state d "t o establis haubstantin l ju.";ti.ficdtior , ther e mus t hav e see n (1 ) a ro.:i.son5bl 6 basi s i n fac t Lo th e fact s alleged , (? ) a reasonabl e basi s i n lawfo r th e theoryth e agenc ypropounded , an d (3 ) th e fact.- ; riJlege d reasonabJ. ysupporte d thc . lega l theoryadvanced. " Therefore , fo r th e agency' s positio n r.o b e found substantiall yjustified , i t mus t b e reaaonafal e in both , foc t an d law ; i.e. , i:h<

? fact s allege d mus t hav e a reasonabl e basi s i n truth , the lega l thsorypropounde d mus t b e reasonable , an d tha fact s allege d mus t reasonabl ysuppor t tha t theory . Se e als o f/.5 , Je z v . Aamlnietratar , NTS B Orde r EA-3ei 7 a t 2 (1993 ) . T nthi s case , roaeonabl e peopl e ma ydiffe r a s C o whethe r Gar yJ , Lee' s laeliavior , nyitself , wa c sufficien t t o interfer e wit hth e flicrh t attendants ' duties . Th e fact e indicat e cha t bot hbrothcr a wer e sitting togethe r [albei t wit hon e empt ysea t i n becwee n them) , bot hwer e loud
and boisterous , and bot hwer e aske d numerou s time s t o kee p i t quie t an d t o stop th e profanity . Areasonabl e perso n ma yencounte r seriou s dlPtJ.cu.l.t.le s i n attemptin g t o Quantif ythe specifi c conduc t O f eac hbrother , shor t o f observin g themi n the courtroom . Whic hi n thi s cas e th e AL J ha d Che apportunit yt o do . Th e conduc t o f bot hbrother s cause d th e fligh t attendant s t o focu s onl yo n the m t o th e exclusio n o f othe r safet y relate d dutie s and thus , dietinguishin g the specifi c ac t o r word s

### 05/25/201 0 18:1 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A* DM S [2|004/01 1

attributabl e t o Garyj
. Le e fromthos e attributabl e t o Michae l P . Le e wa s no t poeeibl e chor t o f observin g thet n i n the courtroom , a s the AL J ha d th e opportunit yt o do . A t th e hearing , th e testimon yO f the fligh t attendant s and o f on e passenge r wa.-

^ ver yclea r an

d consistent . Al l o f thcia seate d tha t bot h brother s wer e loud , boisterous , uge d profanity , an d refuse d t o .sto

p thei r behavio r despit e man yrequest s t o do so . Th e AL J perceive d ('ar yJ . Lee' s conduc t a s bsin g quantitativel y les s seriou s and base d o n hi s perception , h e dismisse d this complain t agains t him . However , th e quantitativ e leve l o f Mr . Gar yJ . Lee' s inappropriat e behavior , whic happear s t o hav e bee n a questio n o f degre e i n th e mind o r th e ALJ , shoul d b e evaluate d a s th e quinteesencia l questio n o f fact , on e tha t .1. 3 w.l.tnir i th e exclusiv e provinc e o f tha AL J a s th e trie r o f fact . Th e expecte d witnesses ' testimon yfro m th e onset , dur.in

g th e depositions , and a s offere d a t th e hearing , di d no t differentiat e betwee n '.h

e conduc t o f th e tw o brother s an d ther e wa s n o indicatio n tha t Wr . GaryJ . Le e ha d behave d muc hdifferentl yfromMichae l P . Lee. ^ Th e transcrip t ± s replet e wit htestimon yfro m th e riiglit . attendant s (an d on e passenger ) tha t indicate s th e fligh t attendant s wer e bus y "'handlin

g bot hrespondents.' ' Therefore , th e FA Awa a sub.-stantiaJ.l y just.l.tieC

i i n initiatin g and continuin g t o pursu e lega l enforcemen t actio n againsi ; bot hbrother s sinc e th e expecte d te.stimon ydi d no t provid e an

ybasi s fo r envisionin g tha t th e quantitativ e behavio r o f on e brothe r woul d resul t i n a dismissa l o f th e FAA' S complain t agains t him .

' Ms
. MajjontssTifledtha t after sli ehadaskedRedpondcnt s thre eo r four time s \ o ciuitt

down , .•sh

e wcn i to Ihc frout an dlol dM.i
. riarmon
. [empha.'si s acklcd] , 'TV eMe de\ierythtng
. I'v easkt dIhe mioplaas eh equle l Pleas edon' t

airxe
. Pleas eIcwer}'c>u r voice
. Just , yo u know , )'o u ca/r' l ac t th hit'oy
. You'r ebolherin^othe r psopl«
. 1 don' t

kne w wha

t cb et o do
. (TR-7 7 an dTR-78). "

### 05/25/201 0 1G:1 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A* DM S §1005/01 1

Th e TLLJ' g cJecisio n show s tha t th e h o realize d th^ t Mc . Gar yJ . Le e
wa s .i n activ e parcicipant ^ i n th e disruptiv e behavio r an d th e ALJ' a decisio n rnaVe s rcfcrencer ; t o "them " an d '"their " uhlc hb ydefinitio n ar e i n th e plura. l rathe r tha n th e singula r form . Moreover , th e ALJ' 6 decisio n states :

Whil e Gar yLe e participate d i n lou d an d profanity-fille d tolkin qwit hhi s brothe r tlie evidenc e raile d t o sho " tha t hi s conduc t b yitsol f cause d interferenc e wit hth e dutie s o f an ycrewmember-th e unusua l an d prolonge d attention s pai d t o th e brother s b ymembe r o r th e fligh t cre wstemme d i n an y significan t measur e ftoii^ Lli c behavi.o r o r action s o l Gar yJ . Lee .
I n fact , th e AL J rioesTOt distinguis ha quantitativ e leve l fo r th e conduc t o f Gar yJ . Le e unti l h e dii^misse s th e FAA' S complain t agains t Gar yJ . Lee . Th e AL J make s i t clea r that , h e be.lleve d rjar yJ . Lao' s behavio r wa s lee s seriou s tha n Michae l P . Lee . However , tha t I s a quant.ltativG leve l o f behavio r question , reserve d fo r th e ALO ' a s th e trie r o f fact .

Th e iesu e o f ottorne yfee s unde r th e F.AJ Awa s mos t recentl y evaluate d J n th e Matto r o f Lis aiSohrden , F/i ADCCICRI , NO . CPOfiFAOOOe , DM S NO . FAA-2D04-2dl54 . I n tha t case , th e FAApursue d lega l ncr.iori an d allege d tha t Mrs . Bowde n ha d (1 ) faile d t o follo worewmcmbera ' inatruction s an d (2Jinterfere d wit ha crawmembe r i n th e performanc e o f he r duties . I n tha t case , th e AL J foun d tha t Mrs . Bowde n ua.^ i liabl e fo r
on e bu t no t fo r bot hviolation-- ) an d reduce d th e civi l penalty . T n th e subsequen t Clai mfo r attorne yfee s unde r th e EAJA , th e AL O pointe d ou t tha t i n tha t case , prio r t o th e filin g o f th e complaint , th e onl y evidenc e i n th e FAA' s poaaessJo n consiste d o l th e fligh t attendant' s

^ Th eALJ' S Iililiu l Decision, ,n Tpag e2 state s at

vuriou apointg : the y wer esomcyvhiil lou dan dboi.<;terpus,.
. mor eiMdl y thanbefore , Ltinguag c wa s liberall y pcpperw l wil hprofanity..
. ate w paesengei- j coinpliiinc d abou t bothth ernovcrsatio nandih c docihe l leve l an dth eccMisiai u oursinif:..
. Reopondent areactedwiil i irriotior i an dagitation,.
. the y reaumc dtbei r lou dan dntd etalk...
. AnH , n npag e? o f th eAl-J' s Initia l Decision, li estale."!"Ms , M"iw)n...ha dtrie deverythingih acoul dthink of w ge t Ui«sapaai)Mi];e nt o comply...
. Thfi y becam econtrile...
.

### 05/25/201 0 16:1 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A+ DM S li]00G/01 1

inciden t repor t an

d the "q<jostionabl e conduct " attribute d t o Mrs . Bowden , e.g. , tha t Sh e mad e severa l request s t o the fligh t attendan t abou t going t o comfor t he r -on who wa s seate d i n firs t clas s an d nothing more . An

d i n Applicatio n o f Pichar dW
. Kuhling , FA

ADocke t CP03GL0CO2 , DM. s No . FAA-2003-157e9 , 200 3 WL 231184S €(D.O.T. ) a t page s 3 an d 4 , the AL J darne d the app.l.lcatlo n eve n thoughthe Applican t had prevaile d i n hi s appea l fro

mthe Initia l Decisio n t o the Administrator . I n th;i1- . case , th e AL J indicate d tha t passiv e resistanc e mayno t ris e t o th e leve l o f interferenc e wit ha fligh t attendants ' dutie s bu t tha t whethe r Mr . Tfuhllng' 3 interferenc e wa s to o inconsequentia l t o mok e ou t Aviolatio n wn. ^ a matte r o r a littl e mor e o r a littl e less . Moreover , th e AL J state d tha t passenge r Ini-.erferenc e coul d wall ; a factua l fine line , abou t whic h reaaonobl e peopl e ca n differ , r.har , th e agencywa s entitle d L o ""err " o

n Che sid e o f bringin g a clos e cas e t o tria l t o fulfil l it s mandat e o f en.forcing/enaurin

g ai r safety , an

d conclude d tha t th e agenc ywa s substantiall yjustifie d i n bringing an d maintaining the action . I n th e instan t case , th e FAA' i evidonc e consiste d o f th e statement s b

ythre e fligh t attendant s an d one paisetiger , wh o hs d n o reaso n t o exaggerate . Al l the statement s describe d the conduc t o r bot h brother s a s bein g lou d an d obnoxious , an

d al l o f the witnesse s Indicate d tha t the nigh t attendant s wer e solel yfocuse d o n thes e two passengers , t o the exclusio n n f othe r autxes . a. s in KuhlSng ^ th e agencyha d a dut y t o bring an

d maintai n the ar:tio n i n orde r t o fulriJ i it 2 dut yt o enforc e an d ensur e ai r safety . Further , a s in KubJing , the Tact s wal k a fin e lin e an d th e decisio n o f the AL J wa s nl.i o abou t '^

a littl e mor e o r a littl e less. " Tnatefore , i t wa s reasonabl e i n la wan d i n fac t fo r th e FA At o rel yon the statement s h ytho nigh t attendant s and paaacnge r i n pursuing actio n agains t Gar yJ , Lee .

### 05/25/201 0 1G;1 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A• > DM S 0007/01 1

Ft:E S CLAIME D ARE EXCESSIV E In the a.Tternatlve , i f th e AL J shoul d deemGaryJ . Leo' s clai mt o b e appropriate , the amoun t rlfiime d i s unreasonabl e to r th e following reasons .

1

- Th e amoun t o f tim e an d expense s allocate d t o eac hre.'^pnnd.en t wa s no t clearl ysegregate d i n th e claim . I t i s insufficien t t o Simpl yasssr t cha t i t i s one-hal f o f the 12 8 hour s the respondent' s counse l claim s t o t^SiV & expende d in preparin g an d processin g bot hcasca . 2
. Ther e ar e a numbe r o f fee s an d expcnse.- i claime d tha t a reasonabl e perso n woul d fin d t o b e excessive . Fo r instance , attorne yfee s fo r purel yclerica l tasks / exclusiv e us e o f Pede s overnigh t de.Uveryservice s in additio n t o fa x delivery , i n ligh t o f the Rule s o f Pror:f»dur e tha t provid e Co t

servic a o f al l dociimentf l b

yU S Mai l an

d merel ypcrmit K the us e o f overnigh t deliverycourier s tha t is , th e exclusiv e us e o f a n overnigh t aellverycourie r appear s t o b e a n exceesiv c expens e whe n compare d t o the cos t o Tcertifie d mal l (an d fax) , In thi s cQ.ie , the U.S . Mai l wa s readil yavailabl e an d thus , i t woul d see

munjustifie d t o us e the mor e expensiv e overnigh t courier . Wit hrespec t t o thes e expenses , the FA Arequest s tha t the AL J den

ythes e expenses , o r in the alternative , tha t thes e expen.sPS b e adjuste d downward , 3 . Respondent' s counse l failed t o segregat e ho u muc htime h e devote d t o the hearing o n th e matte r agains t GaryJ . Le e an d ha wmuc htim

e h e devote d t o th e hearing o n th e matte r agains t Michae l P . Le!^
.

### 05/25/201 0 1G;1 5 FA X 202493514 2 F^ A* DM S 0008/01 1

4 . Moreover , expense s fo r 4 an d • ^ hour s o f attorney' s tim e fo r a ^^moc: k v.rlal " i n a cas e uher o th e fact a wer e ver ysimpl e woul d See mt o b e cxce.'islv a t o a reasonabl e parson . 5 , Responden t claim s fee.' ; fo r approximatel ye d hour s o f wor k fo r wha t amount s t o a ver ysimpl e factua l case . fi. Last , bu t no t least , ther e ar c numerou s interna l conference s betwee n Respondent' s counse l and . othe r member s o f hi s firm , whic hngain , woul d appea r t c b e uiireaaon-Tbl e give n th e .limpl e fact s involve d i n thi s casfe . I nth e /Matte r o f

Lis aBowden , FA

ADocke t fJo . rp05EA0D06 , VM S No . FAA-2004-241S4 , th e AL J evaluate d a pro-rata.awar d o f attorne yfees , an d whic hshould , b e hase d o n th e amoun t o f tim e th e nttorne yha d dedlcaite d t o th e issu e o n whic hth e Responden t ha d prevailari . I n tha t case , th e AL J awarde d foe s fo r abou t 40. 5 hour s an d state d tha t suc hamoun t o f tim e wa- i
no t unreasonable . Th e fact s i n tha t ca.i e wer e mor e comple x tha n th a fact s i n th e instan t cas e an d therefore , thi s Re.ipondent' s applicatio n fo r fee s fo r (5

4 hour s o f wor k woul d appea r unreasonable . PRO-BOM O O n th e issu e o f whethe r attorne yfee s shoul d b e permitte d whe n i t i s clea r fro mRespondent' s counse l tha t hi s la wfir m orfera d th e lega l .service s o n apro-bon o basi-s , Respondent' s counse l kindl yorrere d thre e Case s tha t previou.t.i ydeal t wit haimila r issues . Al l thre e case s ar e dietinguishobl e fro mth e cas e a t han d an d the yw«r c decide d mor e tha n eigh t year ©

ag o an d tha t tha t th e claiman t i n thos e case s wer e i n a ver y dissimila r positio n a s th e claiman t i n th e instan t case . Tha t is , th e claimant s I n thos e case s ha d no t intentionall yvinlate d th e law . Th e undersignp.d ' s re.searc ho l th e r.ase s i n thi s foru mha s nor . yielde d an y claim s fo r attorris ytee s unde r EAJA , wher e th e claj.man t wa s ownrde d attorne yfee s unde r th e T;AJ Afo r lega l .•service s receive d o n a pro-bon o

### 05/25/201 0 16:1 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 0009/01 1

basi s an

d thus , il , wou.l

d appea r tha t the instan t clai mi s on e o f fira t impressio n i n thi s forum .

I n SE C V
. Coitt36v Corporezion
. 90 8 P.? d l^aO T (T"* " Clr . 1990) , th e cour t .state

d tha t award s shoul d b e availabl e wher e th e burde n o f attorney fee s wouJ. d hav e deterre d the litigatio n challenging th e govei'nniciit' s actions , bu t no t wher e no SUCli deterrenc e exists . Th e fact s i n tha t cas e wer e o f a comple x natur e becaus e o f the numerou s complicate d an d interrelate d SE C regulation.' ^ involved . In ^C / A
. iViJ.'5on , Inc
. v . Ccn^x^ l service s Jld/oi/iistration , 12 S F.3 d 140 6 (Fe d Cir . 19-^7) , the fdCt s wer e als o o r a comple xnatur e an d involve d highl ytechnica l issue s o f fac t procuremen t la

wan d , whic htn o litigan t migh t hav e no t pursue d actio n withou t th e assistanc e n f a n attorney . Last , i n Nstiana l Associatio no f Msnvfscturcr s v . J?eparttien t o f Lahnr , 1.5

9 F.'i" ' 59 7 (D.C . Cir . 1998) , thc i
cour t indicate d tha t the Departmen t o f Labo r wriive d the Clai mcha t manufacturer' s associatio n di d no t incur attorneyfee s bccau.-i e associatio n wa s represente d b yla wfir macting pr o bono . I n al l thre e case s cite d b yReapondant , th e clai mfo r attorney fee s involve d i.i.-sue s o f publi c interest , and/o r the iiiue a war e o f such comple xnatur e tha t litigatio n woul d hav e bee n deterre d w.lchou t the assistanc e o f a

n attorney . Tli e fact s i n the instan t cas e wer e straightforward , simple , di d no t involv e high.T

ytechnica l mattar.? , an d raise d on e simpl e factua l question ; tha t ia , whethe r th e conduc t O C th e P.espnnden

t wa s s o distracting a s t o interfer e wit hth e fligh t firrendant' s flutiea. Th e fligh t attendant s repeatedl ytol d bot hrespondent s tha t thei r conduc t waa un,^cceptat). i e an

d tha t i t had t o stop . I n sum , i r Che AL J shoul d deemthi s Respondent' s clai mfo r attorneyfee.-

^ ispproprinrs , w e respectfull yrequest , tha t tha Alj J carefull y05/25/201 0 16:1 5 FA X202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S 0010/01 1

conside r

th eexceasiv enatur e o f th e fee s an dexpense s claime dan dadjus t th eawar ddownward
. WHEREPORK

- fo r th ereason s state dabove , th e FA Arespectfull y request s tha t

applicant' s ::Jai mfo r attorne y fee s unde r th e EAJ

Ab e denie dan dsubmit s tha t a nawar do f

attorne y fee s unde r rhefi e circumotance s woul db eun:iu3t
.

T,rNf;TT EWOR D Regiona l Counse l Southwe.s t B Y : 5tell,ajnar£ 3 W i l 1 1 aaT-~TT q ^_5«rf?t y Enforcemen t

Branc h •260 1 Meachami=i.i.vd. , R- P Por t Worth , Texa a76137-O00 7 Telephone ; 817-222-508 1 Facsimile : 817-222-509 2 Date : 

# Bp£JM
.

n 005/25/201 0 16:1 5 FA X202493514 2 FA A+ DM S 0011/01 1

SERVIC E LIS T OBff i ORIGIKAI . 6 OO T CQg Y CERTiriE D MAI L - RETUR NRECEIP T REQUESTE D Th e Ponorabl e Richar d c . i^oodwi n Administrativ e LawJudg e Offic e o f Heoringn , M-20 , Room '511 1 U . S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n 40 0 .9event

hStreet , S.H , Washington , DC 2059 0 Talaphone : 202-36e-2l3 & Facsimile : 202-366-753 6 QU E COP T CERTIFTE D MAI L - RETURM RliCEIF T REQUESTE D Hearin g Docke t Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n BOO Independenc e Avenue , S.H . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearing Docke t Clorlc , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building - Room 201 4 CERTIFIE D MAI L - RETUR NRECEIP T REQUESTE D Alexande r Anolik r Esq , 21C 7 Va n Nes s Ave. , Suic e 30 0 Sa n Francisco , CA94109-257 2 Telephone : -

f 15-673-333 3 Facslmlte : ^la-brA-JEd S

Arxec n C . Ayala , Pj^gramAnalys t Safet yEnforcemenv , branc h (817 ) 222-508 7 

# f^^9-0l
.

1 1