SERVE D FEBRUAR Y 21 , 201 1

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . 

# RECEIVE D MA R - \ 2(tt t 

# HEARIN G DOCKE T

APPLICATIO NO F RECURREN T TRAININ GCENTER , INC . Fo r fee s an dexpanse s unde r th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac t FA A DOCKE T NO . (CPIOGLOOIO ) (Civi l Penalty Action ) FDM S NO . (FAA-2010-0973 ) •-—•( - (vi^r n

C O

APPELLANT' S BRIE FI NSUPPOR T O FIT S APPEA LO FTH E ADMINISTRATIV ELA WJUDGE' S INITIA LDECISIO N DENYIN G APPLICATIO N FO RATTORNEY' S FEE S AN D OTHE REXPENSE S COME S NO WRespondent , RECURREN T TRAININ GCENTER , INC. , hereinafte r "RTC" , b y an dthroug hit s counsel , BARNET T LA WOFFICES , P.C. , pursuan t t o 1 4 CF R § 14.2 8 an d§13.23 3 hereb y submit s it s Brie f I nSuppor t

O f It s Appea l O f

The Administrativ e Law Judge' s Initia l Decisio n Denyin g Applicatio nFo r Attorney' s Fee s an dOthe r Expense s unde r th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Act , FA A Docke t No . CPIOGLOOIO (DM S No . FAA-2010

- 0973 ) serve do n January 3 , 2011 . RT C contend s tha t th e findin g o f

substantia l justificatio n b y th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , was not si4>portedb y apreponderanc e o f th e reliable .probativ e an dsubstantia l evidence ; an dthat th e conclusion s o f

la w wer e not

mad e i naccordanc e withapplicabl e la w o r

precedent . I nsupport

thereof , RT C state s th e following : STATEMEN T O FTH ECAS E

I . Procedura l Histor y O n Septembe r

21,2009 , Complainant , th e Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n("FAA") , issue dthei r

Fina l Notic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penalty . Th e FA A sough t a$3,85 0 civi l penalty agains t RT C chargin g i t

wit hviolation s o f

§§141.41(b)(3) , 141.83(a)(1 ) an d61.57(d ) o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s ("FARs") . Th e allegation s originate di nth e natur e o f Instrument Proficienc y Check s ("IPCs" ) tha t RT C ha dconducte dfo r

tw o pilots . Th e FA A contende dthat

§61.57(d ) require dRT C t o accomplis hal l th e task s containe di n th e Practica l Tes t

Standard s guide s whil e RT C contende dtha t onl y arepresentativ e nimibe r o f task s neede dt o b e accomplishe di naccordanc e withth e plai nmeanin g o f th e FAR . I f

al l task s woul dhav e bee n required , RT C coul dno t accomplis hth e IPC s becaus e Circlin g Approache s an dLandin g from aStraight-i n o r Circlin g Approache s coul dno t b e conducte di nRTC' s Fligh t Trainin g Device s ("FTDs") . O nSeptembe r

30,2009 , pursuan t

t o 1 4 CF R§ 13.16(h) , RT C timel y serve dit s Reques t for Hearin g i n thi s matter . O n Marc h23,2010 , pursuan t t o 1 4 CF R§13.218(f)(5) , RT C file di t Motion for

Decision . O n Augus t

11,2010 , th e Initia l Decisio no f Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dC . Goodwi n dismisse dth e FAA' s complain t ageiins t RTC .O n Septembe r 10 , 2010 , RT C timel y file dit s Applicatio nFo r AnAwar dO f

Attorne y Fee s an dOthe r

Expense s Pursuan t

T o The Equa l Acces s T

o Justic e Ac t

(EAJA) . O n January 3,2011 , th e Administrativ e La w Judg e issue dhi s Initia l Decisio nDenyin g Applicatio n fo r

Attorney' s Fee s an dOthe r Expenses . O n January 8 , 2011 , RT C timel y filedit s Notic e o f Appea l an dno w submit s th e instan t brie f i n support

o f same . II . Statemen t

o f Fact s Th e partie s agree dt o th e followin g facts : 1 . RT C hold s an dat

al l time s mentione dherei nhel da nAi r Agenc y Certificat e Numbe r R9KS949 K

fo r a n approve dProvisiona l Pilo t Schoo l wit haSpecia l Preparatio n Course s ratin g issue db y th e FAA . 2 . RT C als o hold s an dat all time s mentione dherei nhel dTrainin g Cente r Certificat e Numbe r R9KX049 K

withTrainin g Specification s t o conduc t trainin g course s with respec t t o 1 4 C.F.R . 142 . 3 . O n o r abou t January 16,2008 , RT C certifie dtha t Mr . VanBerko msuccessfull y complete da nInstrumen t

Proficienc y Chec k

("IPC" ) an do nDecembe r 17 , 2007 , RT C certifie dtha t

Mr . Moor e successfull y complete da nInstrumen t Proficienc y Check . Thes e IPC s wer e performe di naFligh t Trainin g Devic e ("FTD") , Leve l 1 , 3 , o r 6 . 4 . Circlin g Approache s an dLandin g fro maStraight-i no r Circlin g Approac hmaneuver s canno t b e performe dwit haFligh t Trainin g Etevic e ("FTD" ) Leve l 1 , 3 o r 6 . 5 . FT D Leve l 1 , 3 an d6 ar e th e FTD s approve dfo r RTC .6 . Th e IPC' s give n t o bothpilot s di dno t tes t fo r Landin g fix)maStraight-i no r Circlin g Approac hmaneuvers . 7 . Th e Complainan t

asserte dthat

a nIP C mus t

tes t fo r aJl th e Instrument

Ratin g Practica l Tes t Standard s ("PTS") . Th e PT S include s Landin g fro maStraight-i nan dCirclin g Approac hmaneuvers . 8 . Th e Agenc y argue dtha t RT C committe dthre e violation s fo r th e FAR's : a . §141.41(b)(3) , b . §141.83(aXl)an d c . $61.57(d ) 9 . RT C argue dthat

th e languag e o f

61.57(d ) i s clear

an dvmambiguou s o nit s fac e an d tha t a n IP C nee donl y includ e " arepresentativ e numbe r o f tasks" . Base dupo n th e evidenc e i n th e record , th e la w judg e foun dth e followin g facts : 10 . Th e Court

foimdtha t

ther e wer e n o genuin e issue s o f materia l fac t

an dtha t th e matte r coul db e decide do n question s o f la w (Se e Decision , I . Para . 7) . 11 . Th e Court

state di n it s decisio ntha t al l allegation s hinge dupo na nevaluatio no f th e languag e o f

1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d) . (Se e Decision , II I Para. . 2 ) 12 . Th e Court

further state di nit s decisio ntha t th e prope r

readin g o f

1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d ) require s accomplishmen t o f a"representativ e number " o f PT S task s - no t

al l o f them , an dnot necessaril y th e one s name di nth e PT S chart . (Se e Decision , II LPara . 4 ) 13 . Th e Agency' s positio n woul deffectivel y delet e th e word s "representativ e number " an dth e manifes t

inten t o f th e regulatio nwoul dthu s b e thwarted . (Se e Decision , II L Para . 4 )14 . Th e Court further state dtha t

th e Agenc y relie do nstatement s fromth e PT S whic hd o not hav e th e forc e o f

law . Becaus e th e PT S lacks legal effect , i t may not impose dutie s not compelle db y th e plai nword s o f 1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d) . (Se e Decision , II I Para . 6 ) 15 . Moreover , th e Court

stated , 1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d ) require s n o explainin g o r supplementatio n b y referenc e t o extrinsi c documents . A s such , th e argument s o f th e Agenc y ar e besid e th e point . (Se e Decision , II LPara . 7 ) 16 . Lastly , th e Court

decide dtha t

th e allegation s o f

th e Complain t

wer e not prove n an d th e Complian t

i s "hereb y dismissed" . (Se e Decision , II I Para . 8 )

SUMMAR Y O FTH EARGUMEN T I nth e instan t

appeal , RT C contend s tha t th e fmdin g o f

substantial justificatio nb y th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodvwn , wa s not supporte db y apreponderanc e o f th e reliable , probativ e an dsubstantial evidenc e an dth e conclusion s o f la w wer e not

mad e i naccordanc e with applicabl e la w o r

precedent . Followin g th e ALJ' s initia l decisio ni nfavo r o f RTC , RT C filed a timel y applicatio n fo r

a n awar do f

fee s an dexpense s unde r th e EAJA . Sinc e th e Agenc y di dno t challeng e whethe r

RT C wa s th e prevailin g party ; whethe r RT C wa s fioanciall y qualifie dt o receiv e anEAJ A award ; whethe r th e claime dattorneys ' fee s an dexpense s wer e reasonabl e imde r th e circumstances ; o r

whethe r specia l circumstance s mak e a nEAJ A awar duijjust ; th e sol e remainin g issu e involve s whethe r th e Agenc y wa s substantiall y justifie di nprosecutin g th e matter .RT C contend s th e FAA' s positio nwa s actuall y fiivolous sinc e th e FAA , i neffect , wa s

attemptin g t o mak e retroactiv e t o 200 7 anFA Rtha t becam e effectiv e i n2009 . Accordingly , ther e woul db e n o reaso n t o chang e th e FA Ri f th e regulatio nwhic hwas allege dt o hav e bee n violate dalread y require dconductin g all o f th e tasks . Further , th e AL J decisio n denyin g th e applicatio nstate s tha t th e FA A i s entitle dt o er r o n tigh t case s t o fulfil l it s mandate . A s th e chang e t o th e FA Rmad e int o la w th e FAA' s earlier interpretation , th e mandat e become s amoo t issu e becaus e ther e wa s n o longe r anee dfor

a preceden t settin g decision . Moreover , th e FAA' s positio nclearl y offende destablishe dpreceden t whe ni t ignore dat leas t thre e o f it s ow n publication s that wer e contrary t o th e FAA' s position . Th e publication s whic hestablishe dpreceden t ar e th e FAA' s ow nFA A Orde r 8900.1 , Fligh t

Standard s Informatio n Managemen t Syste m(FSIMS ) Handboo k Paragrap h5-263 ; Advisory Circular 61

- 98 A givin g discretio n t o th e instructor ; an dA nFA A Legal Interpretatio nLette r contemplatin g th e us e o f FTD' s fo r

IPC's . What i s more , RT C wa s charge dwithviolatin g tw o part s unde r 1 4 C.F.R . §141 . Throughou t

th e cours e o f

th e proceeding s th e Administrato r neve r pu t fortha nargumen t

a s t o ho w th e allege dviolatio n unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 61.5 7 automaticall y resulte di nRT C violatin g 1 4 C.F.R . §141 . Th e FA A neve r cite dRTC' s TCO' s (Trainin g Cours e Outline ) o r Syllabu s an dho w RT C di dno t

compl y wit hit s approve dcourses . Accordingly , th e FA A caimo t b e substantiall y justifie di n chargin g RT C withviolation s o f 1 4 C.F.R , §14 1 i f

th e Administrato r

canno t articulat e ho w th e violatio n occurred . Lastly , fte EAJ A regulation s specificall y plac e th e burde no f provin g that

th e agency' s positio nwa s reasonabl e i n fac t an dla w o nth e agency . 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.04(a) . Th e FA A ha s faile dt o mee t tha t burde n i n it s respons e t o RTC' s application . I nth e cas e at bar , th e imderlyin g governmen t

actio n at issu e an dth e positio ntake nb y th e governmen t i ndefendin g th e validity o f it s action , wa s not

reasonabl e i n la w o r

fact . Therefore , th e la w judge' s decisio ndenyin g th e EAJ A applicatio n mus t

b e reversed . STAJVDARD S Pursuan t t o 1 4 CF R§ 13.233 , i nan y appea l from adecisio no f anadministrativ e la w judge , th e FA A decisionmake r consider s onl y th e followin g issues : (1 ) Whethe r

eac hfindin g o f

fac t i s supporte db y apreponderanc e o f reliable , probative , an d substantial evidence ; (2 ) Whethe r

eac hconclusio n o f

la w i s mad e i naccordanc e withapplicabl e law , precedent , an d publi c policy ; an d (3 ) Whethe r

th e administrativ e la w judg e committe dan y prejudicia l error s tha t support th e appeal . Unde r

th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac t (EAJA) , aprevailin g part y shal l recove r reasonabl e litigatio n cost s i f th e Agency' s positio ni nth e underlyin g litigatio nwa s no t "substantiall y justified. " 5 U.S.C . §504(a)(1) . Th e Ac t provide s for

th e awar do f

attorne y fee s an d othe r expense s t o eligibl e individual s an dentitie s wh o ar e partie s t o certai nadministrativ e proceeding s befor e agencie s suc ha s th e Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n(FAA) . T o prov e that

it s positio n wa s substantiall y justified , th e agenc y mus t demonstrat e that

it s positio n wa s reasonabl e bothi n la w an dfac t I nth e Matte r

o f Nanc y Ren e Floyd , FA A Orde r No . 2006- 4 (February 10,2006 ) citin g Fre y v . CFTC , 93 1 F.2 d117 1 (7thCir . 1991) , Natche z Coca

Col aBottlin g Co. , Inc. , v . NLRB , 75 0 F.2 d135 0 (5thCir . 1985) . A s th e Suprem e Court explained , "substantiall y justifie dmean s justifie dt o adegre e tha t coul dsatisf

y areasonabl eperso n o r havin g areasonabl e basi s bot hi nla w an dfact. " Pierc e v . Underwood , 48 7 U.S . 552 , 56 5 (1988) . Th e governmen t bear s th e burde no f

demonstratin g substantia l justification . Kal i v . Bowden , 85 4 F.2 d329 , 33 4 (9thCir . 1988) . Th e FAA' s EAJ A regulation s specificall y plac e th e burde no f provin g tha t

th e agency' s positio n wa s reasonabl e i n fac t an dla w o nth e agency . 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.04(a) . Once , a s i n thi s case , i t i s establishe dtha t

th e ^plican t

i s aprevailin g party , th e governmen t bear s th e burde n o f provin g tha t

it s positio n i n th e underlyin g litigatio nwa s substantiall y justifie do r tha t specia l circumstance s existed . Tauche r v . Brown-Hruska , 39 6 F.3 d116 8 (D.C . Cir . 2005) . "Whethe r o r not th e positio n o f

th e agenc y wa s substantiall y justifie dshal l b e determine do nth e basi s o f th e administrativ e record , a s awhole , whic hi s mad e i nth e adversary adjudicatio nfo r whic hfee s an dothe r expense s ar e sought. " 5 U.S.C . § 504(a)(1) . A s th e Suprem e Court explaine di n Pierc e v . Underwood , 48 7 U.S . 552 , 56 5 (1988) , '"substantiall y justified ' mean s 'justifie dt o a degre e tha t

coul dsatisf

y areasonabl e person, ' o r havin g a'reasonabl e basi s bot hi nla w an d facV " Jone s v . Lujan , 88 7 F.2 d1096,109 8 (D.C . Cir . 1989) . Th e substantial justificatio n standar d"i s satisfie di f

ther e i s a'genuin e dispute, ' o r i f reasonabl e peopl e coul ddiffer a s t o th e appropriatenes s o f

th e conteste daction. " Pierc e v . Underwood , 48 7 U.S . at 565 . "T o b e 'substantiall y justified ' means , o f course , mor e tha nmerel y undeservin g o f sanction s fo r frivolousness. " I dat

566 . Justic e Brennan' s concurrenc e conclude s tha t th e governmen t

"ca n avoi dfee s onl y wher e i t

make s aclea r

showin g that

it s positio nha dasoli dbasi s (a s oppose dt o a margina l basi s o r

ano t unreasonabl e basis ) i nbot hla w an dfact. " I dat 579 . Th e Boar dimplicitl y adopte dJustic e Brennan' s vie w o f th e substantiall y justifie dstandar db y holdin g tha t "EAJ A award s ar e intende dt o dissuad e th e governmen t frompursuin g 'wea k

o r tenuous ' cases. " Hampton , NTS B Orde r

No . EA-355 7 at

5 (1 4 Ma y 1992 ) (citin g Catskil l Airways , 4 N.T.S.B .79 9 (1983) ; Wendler , 4 N.T.S.B . 71 8 (1983 ) afF dWendle r

v . NTSB , No . 83-190 5 (10thCir . 2 8 February 1985)) . Th e combinatio n o f Underwood , Hampto nan dcommo nsens e requir e that th e Administrator' s positio n hav e asolid , a s oppose dt o marginal , basi s i nla w an dfact . ARGUMEN T Th e FAA' s positio n i n th e underlyin g matte r wa s base do nit s contentio ntha t 1 4 CF R §61.57(d ) require s a n IP C t o tes t fo r al l Instrument

Ratin g Practica l Tes t

Standard s tasks . Th e plai n languag e o f

th e regulatio n refer s t o a"representativ e numbe r o f task s require db y th e instrumen t

ratin g practica l test. " However , th e Administrativ e La w Judg e foun dtha t th e "instrumen t

rating practica l test " standard s wer e "incorporated " int o §61.5 7 (d) , an dthu s wer e all mandatory , was "plausible" . RT C argues , now , tha t th e ALJ' s conclusio no f

law (tha t th e FAA' s interpretatio n was "plausible" ) wa s no t mad e i naccordanc e withapplicabl e law , precedent , an d publi c policy . I n Octobe r

o f 2009 , th e Federa l Aviatio nRegulatio ntha t wa s at issu e i nth e underlyin g enforcemen t

actio n wa s changed . Th e ne w 61.57(d ) require s all (no t arepresentativ e number ) task s i n th e PT S t o b e accomplishe ddurin g a nIPC . Th e ne w regulatio nresulte di nth e FA A prosecutin g afrivolou s positio n sinc e th e FAA , i neffect , wa s attemptin g t o mak e retroactiv e t o 200 7 an FA Rtha t

becam e effectiv e i n2009 . Simpl y put , ther e woul db e n o reaso nt o chang e th e FA Ri f th e regulatio n whic hwa s allege dt o hav e bee nviolate dalread y require dconductin g all o f th e tasks . Furthermore , th e AL J decisio ndenyin g th e applicatio nwen t o nt o say tha t

th e FA A i s entitle dt o err

o n tigh t case s t o fulfill it s mandate . A s th e chang e t o th e FA Rmad e int o la w th e FAA' s earlie r

interpretation , th e mandat e become s amoo t issu e becaus e ther e wa s n o longe r anee dfor apreceden t

settin g decision . Th e plai nlanguag e o f th e regulatio nremain s a s clear today a s i t

wa s at th e tim e o f

th e allege dviolation . I n200 7 onl y arepresentativ e numbe r o f task s wer e required , toda y all o f th e task s ar e required . T o argu e that thi s enforcemen t

actio n otherwis e establishe s preceden t an dis , accordingly , substantiall y justified , i s apositio nthat i s base dneithe r

i n eithe r la w o r fact . Further , i n support

o f it s argument , RT C cite di nit s Motio nfo r Decisio nthre e separat e FA A source s clearl y establishin g FA A preceden t regardin g th e accomplishmen t o f task s durin g IPC's . Thes e source s include :

• FA A Orde r

8900.1 , Fligh t

Standard s Informatio nManagemen t Syste m(FSIMS ) Handboo k Paragrap h5-263 ,

• Advisory Circular

61-9 8 A givin g discretio nt o th e instructor , an d

• A n FA A Lega l Interpretatio n Lette r contemplatin g th e us e o f FTD' s for

IPC's . Despit e referencin g thes e thre e source s o f precedent , th e Administrativ e La w Judg e foun d th e partie s "wer e unabl e t o utiliz e preceden t t o hel p formulat e thei r

respectiv e positions. " Th e ALJ continue db y statin g "[a]ls o supportin g th e agency' s proo f i s th e principl e that FA A i s entitle dt o "err " o n th e sid e o f bringin g clos e case s t o tria l t o fulfill it s mandat e o f enforcin g an densurin g ai r safety. " A s RT C ha s maintaine dthroughou t thes e proceedings , ther e simpl y wa s n o reaso n fo r

pursuin g thi s matte r

becaus e th e FA Rha dbee nchange dt o requir e al l task s b e accomplished . Eve n more , th e enforcemen t actio ntha t

i s th e underlyin g enforcemen t actio n o f thi s appea l wa s no t

reasonabl e because , ha dth e FAA' s positio nbee nreasonable , ther e woiil dhav e bee n n o reaso n t o chang e th e FA Rt o requir e all o f th e task s i nth e PT S t o b e accomplishe ddurin g an IPC . Th e agenc y simpl y di dnot hav e areasonabl e basi s for proceedin g

1 0an dseein g th e matte r through . Th e matte r

ha dbee ndecide db y th e promulgatio no f arevise d FAR . RT C wa s charge dwithviolatin g tw o part s unde r 1 4 C.F.R . §141 . Throughou t th e cours e o f th e proceeding s th e Administrato r neve r pu t fort hanargumen t

a s t o ho w th e allege dviolatio n unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 61.5 7 automaticall y resulte di nRT C violatin g 1 4 C.F.R . §141 . Th e FA A neve r cite dRTC' s TCO' s o r

Syllabu s an dho w RT C di dnot compl y withit s approve dcourses . Accordingly , th e FA A canno t b e substantiall y justifie di nchargin g RT C wit hviolation s o f 1 4 C.F.R . §14 1 i f

th e Administrato r

caimo t articulat e ho w th e violatio noccurred. Cas e la w indicates tha t

th e Administrato r

mus t b e substantiall y justifie di nal l o f th e phase s o f

th e proceedings . America n Wreckin g Corporatio nv . Secretar y o f Labor , 36 4 F.3 d32 1 (D.C.Cir . 04/20/2004) . h i tha t

cas e th e court

state d"w e fm

dtha t th e Secretary o f

Labor' s ("Secretary" ) positio nwa s substantiall y justifie di nall but tw o phase s o f

th e proceeding s agains t

AWC . .. . W e therefor e awar dfee s an dexpense s t o AW C i nth e amoun t o f $43,910.16 , whic hrepresent s th e reasonabl e amoun t

t o whic hAW C i s entitle dfo r th e tw o phase s o f

th e proceeding s i n whic h th e Secretary' s positio n wa s no t substantiall y justifie d" I da t 324 . Accordingly , RT C shoul db e awarde dfee s an dcost s fo r th e phase s o f

th e proceedin g i nwhic hth e FA A wa s no t substantiall y justified . I n addition , th e agenc y must , first sho w areasonabl e basi s i ntrut hfo r th e fact s alleged , second , sho w areasonabl e basi s i nla w fo r th e lega l theory propovmde dand , finally, sho w a reasonabl e connectio n betwee n th e fact s an dit s lega l theory . I nth e instan t cas e th e FA A ha s don e non e o f

those . Accordin g t o th e AL J decisio ndismissin g th e underlyin g matter , th e definitio n o f

"representative " a s use di nth e dictionary , clearl y allow s for les s tha nall o f

th e task s require db y th e PT S t o b e accomplishe do na nIPC . It i s reasonabl e positio nt o expec t th e FA A

1 1•

^ V

t o b e abl e t o referenc e adictionary . I ncontrast , i t i s a nunreasonabl e positio nfo r th e FA A t o unilaterall y constru e th e wor d"representative " t o mea n"all" . Th e res t o f th e argument s promulgate db y th e FA A ar e merel y adistractio nfiwmthi s basi c issue . Th e FAA' s positio n wa s unreasonabl e an dth e FA A ha s no t me t it s burde nt o prov e otherwise . CONCLUSIO N Fo r th e foregoin g reasons . Appellan t RT C respectfiiUy request s th e FA A Decsionmake r t o revers e th e initia l decisio n o f th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwi ndenyin g it s ^plicatio n for attorney' s fee s an dothe r

expenses . Respectfull y submitted .

Charle s R . Bamett , HI BARNET T LA WOFFICES , P.C . 166 4 Moorlan dLan e Crysta l Lake , Illinoi s 60014-298 5 (815)356-864 7 (815 ) 356-704 2 (FAX ) Attorne y for Apjjlicah t Recurren t Trainin g Center , Inc .

1 2CERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E

Th e undersigne dcertifie s tha t th e foregoin g Appellant' s Brie f I nSuppor t

O f It s Appea l O f

Th e Administrativ e La w Judge' s Initia l Decisio nDenyin g Applicatio nFo r Attorney' s Fee s An d Othe r Expense s wa s serve dvi aU S Certifie dMail , retur nreceip t requeste da s follows : ORIGINA LAN D ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Cleric , AGC-43 0 WUbur Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W100 0 FAX : 202-493-514 2 ON ECOP Y Brian aMartino , Complainant' s Counse l Great Lake s Region , AGL-7 M Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 230 0 Eas t Devo n Avenu e De s Plaines , I L60018-469 6 TEL : 847-294-771 3 FAX : 847-294-749 8 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6 Date dthi s 21s t

da y o f Februar y 201 1 ,CharlesR.B^ett;n i Attorne y fo r

Responden t

1 3