Dianne Bebble’s 8/2/2011 Memo to Tony Ferrante, WhiteWashed Final Report on the KCMA OE Investigation

Below is a JPEG copy of the 5-page memo which became the official ‘whitewashed’ version of FAA’s internal investigation into the 7/25/2010 controller error at Camarillo.

This document, from early August 2011, serves as an example of how resistant FAA is to producing records under the FOIA Laws. FOIA laws require production of records within 30-days. In this case, the FOIA request was made in December 2011, FAA officials promptly acknowledged the FOIA request, but they then refused to process. The initial response was delayed an additional 22-months, and that copy was heavily and improperly redacted, thus of no use. As it happens, a FOIA civil action had been filed in June 2013, and a copy of the document was produced in trial discovery, a month after the redacted FOIA production. Total time from FOIA request to a full and proper FOIA production was 24-months (vs. the 1-month required by FOIA law).

The following Table provides a brief chronology, showing how this record was repeatedly concealed but eventually released by FAA:

12/15/2011 Initial FOIA Request
12/22/2011 FOIA Request was Acknowledged (letter signed by Joann Noonan, at FAA HQ).
6/13/2013 FOIA Civil Action filed at US District Court. This was 18-months after the FOIA Request, and FAA had offered no response. In fact, FAA did not produce any copies until five months later.
11/22/2013 FAA produced its initial FOIA Response, 23-months after the FOIA Request was acknowledged (thus, more than 21-months after the FOIA response deadline set by the FOIA statutes). The 5-page record, at pages 7-11, was heavily spot-redacted, improperly applying FOIA Exemption #6 (personal privacy).
12/19/2013 FAA produced  their initial Discovery package, 6-months after the FOIA civil action had been filed. The Discovery package measured 2,114-pages. This 5-page memo was included at pages FAA-01613 through FAA-01617.
9/24/2014 FAA filed ‘Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment‘ (CR-41). It included a second copy of this 5-page Memo, with no redactions, marked ‘Attachment 1’ (see JPEG posted below). This was a repeat copy of pages FAA-01613 through FAA-01617, previously received 12/19/13.

See also:

20140924.. Exhibit - Bebble's 8-2-2011 letter, same as FAA-01613 thru FAA-01617 (cv-0992, CR-41.1)(5p)_1 20140924.. Exhibit - Bebble's 8-2-2011 letter, same as FAA-01613 thru FAA-01617 (cv-0992, CR-41.1)(5p)_2 20140924.. Exhibit - Bebble's 8-2-2011 letter, same as FAA-01613 thru FAA-01617 (cv-0992, CR-41.1)(5p)_3 20140924.. Exhibit - Bebble's 8-2-2011 letter, same as FAA-01613 thru FAA-01617 (cv-0992, CR-41.1)(5p)_4 20140924.. Exhibit - Bebble's 8-2-2011 letter, same as FAA-01613 thru FAA-01617 (cv-0992, CR-41.1)(5p)_5