RECEIVED 

SERVED: August 26, 2015 

AlJG 2 7 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

APPLICATION OF 

TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD. 

Docket No. FAA-2014- 1117 

(Equal Access to Justice Action) 

INITIAL DECISION 

DENYING APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND OTHER EXPENSES 

I. Background 

This application under the Equal Access to Justice Act (hereinafter "EAJA"), 5 US. C. 

§504, originated from a proceeding in which the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter 

"FAA") alleged Trans North Aviation, LTD, violated 14 CFR § 135.267(d), which states: 

Each assignment under paragraph (b) of this section must provide for at least 10 

consecutive hours of rest during the 24-hour period that precedes the planned completion 

time of the assignment. 

The FAA asked for a civil penalty of$7,500. 

Trans North Aviation, LTD (hereinafter "Trans") denied the charges. 

We held an evidentiary hearing on July 23, 2013, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

We issued our Initial Decision (hereinafter "ID") on September 25,2014 finding the 

violation and assessing Trans a civil penalty in the amount of$7,500. 

On November 10,2014, Trans filed its appeal. On December 1, 2014 the FAA decided 

to withdraw its complaint against Trans and thereafter withdrew our order assessing the civil 
penalty against Trans North. On December 2, 2014, Trans filed its motion to dismiss the case 

with prejudice. On December 3, 2014, the FAA filed its Motion in Support of Trans' motion to 

dismiss. On December 4, 2014, the Administrator granted Trans' Motion to Dismiss and 

dismissed the complaint and proceedings with prejudice. Thereafter Trans timely filed its EAJA 

Application for Fees. 

II. EAJA Petition 

Trans avers that while it lost the ID, ultimately the FAA withdrew its complaint. Trans 

averred it was the prevailing party and recited facts from the underlying case. 

III. Law and Standards 

EAJAis set forth in 5 U.S. C. §504 which provides in pertinent part: 

(a)(l) An agency that conducts an adversary adjudication shall award, to a 

prevailing party other than the United States, fees and other expenses incurred by 

that party in connection with that proceeding, unless the adjudicative officer of 

the agency finds that the position of the agency was substantially justified or that 

special circumstances make an award unjust. Whether or not the position of the 

agency was substantially justified shall be determined on the basis of the 

administrative record, as a whole, which is made in the adversary adjudication for 

which fees and other expenses are sought. 

(2) A party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, within thirty days 

of a final disposition in the adversary adjudication, submit to the agency an 

application which shows that the party is a prevailing party and is eligible to 

receive an award under this section, and the amount sought, including an itemized 

statement from any attorney, agent, or expert witness representing or appearing in 

behalf of the party stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and 

other expenses were computed. The party shall also allege that the position of the 

agency was not substantially justified. When the United States appeals the 

underlying merits of an adversary adjudication, no decision on an application for 

fees and other expenses in connection with that adversary adjudication shall be 

made under this section until a final and unreviewable decision is rendered by the 

court on the appeal or until the underlying merits of the case have been fmally 

determined pursuant to the appeal. 

(3) The adjudicative officer of the agency may reduce the amount to be awarded, 

or deny an award, to the extent that the party during the course of the proceedings 

engaged in conduct which unduly and unreasonably protracted the final resolution 

2 
of the matter in controversy. The decision of the adjudicative officer of the 

agency under this section shall be made a part of the record containing the final 

decision of the agency and shall include written findings and conclusions and the 

reason or basis therefor. The decision of the agency on the application for fees 

and other expenses shall be the final administrative decision under this section. 

( 4) If, in an adversary adjudication arising from an agency action to enforce a 

party's compliance with a statutory or regulatory requirement, the demand by the 

agency is substantially in excess of the decision of the adjudicative officer and is 

unreasonable when compared with such decision, under the facts and 

circumstances of the case, the adjudicative officer shall award to the party the fees 

and other expenses related to defending against the excessive demand, unless the 

party has committed a willful violation oflaw or otherwise acted in bad faith, or 

special circumstances make an award unjust. Fees and expenses awarded under 

this paragraph shall be paid only as a consequence of appropriations provided in 

advance. 

(b)(l) For the purposes of this section--

(A) "fees and other expenses" includes the reasonable expenses of expert 

witnesses, the reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, or 

project which is found by the agency to be necessary for the preparation of the 

party's case, and reasonable attorney or agent fees (The amount of fees awarded 

under this section shall be based upon prevailing market rates for the kind and 

quality of the services furnished, except that (i) no expert witness shall be 

compensated at a rate in excess of the highest rate of compensation for expert 

witnesses paid by the agency involved, and (ii) attorney or agent fees shall not be 

awarded in excess of $125 per hour unless the agency determines by regulation 

that an increase in the cost ofliving or a special factor, such as the limited 

availability of qualified attorneys or agents for the proceedings involved, justifies 

a higher fee.); 

(B) "party" means a party, as defined in section 551(3) of this title, who is (i) an 

individual whose net worth did not exceed $2,000,000 at the time the adversary 

adjudication was initiated, or (ii) any owner of an unincorporated business, or any 

partnership, corporation, association, unit oflocal govermnent, or organization, 

the net worth of which did not exceed $7,000,000 at the time the adversary 

adjudication was initiated, and which had not more than 500 employees at the 

time the adversary adjudication was initiated; except that an organization 

described in section 50l(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 

50l(c)(3)) exempt from taxation under section 50l(a) of such Code, or a 

cooperative association as defmed in section 15(a) of the Agricultural Marketing 

Act (12 U.S.C. 114lj(a)), may be a party regardless of the net worth of such 

organization or cooperative association or for purposes of subsection (a)( 4), a 

small entity as defmed in section 601; 

3 
(C) "adversary adjudication" means (i) an adjudication under section 554 of this 

title in which the position of the United States is represented by counsel or 

otherwise, but excludes an adjudication for the purpose of establishing or fixing a 

rate or for the purpose of granting or renewing a license, (ii) any appeal of a 

decision made pursuant to section 7103 of title 41 before an agency board of 

contract appeals as provided in section 7105 oftit1e 41, (iii) any hearing 

conducted under chapter 38 of title 31, and (iv) the Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act of 1993; 

(D) "adjudicative officer" means the deciding official, without regard to whether 

the official is designated as an administrative law judge, a hearing officer or 

examiner, or otherwise, who presided at the adversary adjudication; 

(E) "position of the agency" means, in addition to the position taken by the 

agency in the adversary adjudication, the action or failure to act by the agency 

upon which the adversary adjudication is based; except that fees and other 

expenses may not be awarded to a party for any portion of the adversary 

adjudication in which the party has unreasonably protracted the proceedings; and 

(F) "demand" means the express demand ofthe agency which led to the 

adversary adjudication, but does not include a recitation by the agency of the 

maximmn statutory penalty (i) in the administrative complaint, or (ii) elsewhere 

when accompanied by an express demand for a lesser amount. 

The EAJA requires an agency conducting an "adversary adjudication" to award fees and 

other expenses to a prevailing party (other than the United States) unless the position of the 

agency was "substantially justified" or special circmnstances make an award unjust (5 U.S. C. 

§504(a)(l)). The FAA's rules implementing the EAJA essentially track its language (see 14 

C.F.R. §14. 04): 

(a) An application for an award of fees and expenses under the Act shall identifY 

the applicant and the proceeding for which an award is sought. The application 

shall show that the applicant has prevailed and identifY the position of the agency 

in the proceeding that the applicant alleges was not substantially justified. Unless 

the applicant is an individual, the application shall also state the nmnber of 

employees of the applicant and describe briefly the type and purpose of its 

organization or business. 

(b) The application shall also include a statement that the applicant's net worth 

does not exceed $2 million (if an individual) or $7 million (for all other 

4 
applicants, including their affiliates) at the time the adversary adjudication was 

initiated. However, an applicant may omit this statement if: 

(1) It attaches a copy of a ruling by the Internal Revenue Service that it qualifies 

as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code 

(26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)), or in the case of a tax-exempt organization not required to 

obtain a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service on its exempt status, a 

statement that describes the basis for the applicant's belief that it qualifies under 

such section; or 

(2) It states that it is a cooperative association as defined in section 15(a) of the 

Agricultural Marketing Act (12 U.S.C. 1141j(a)). 

(c) The application shall state the amount of fees and expenses for which an 

award is sought. 

(d) The application may also include any other matters that the applicant wishes 

this agency to consider in determining whether and in what amount an award 

should be made. 

(e) The application shall be signed by the applicant or an authorized officer or 

attorney for the applicant. It shall also contain or be accompanied by a written 

verification under oath or under penalty of perjury that the information provided 

in the application is true and correct. 

The burden of proof that an award should not be made rests with the agency (14 C.F.R. 

§14.04(a)). 

"Substantial justification" connotes an active, searching inquiry into the quality of 

evidence advanced and the overall reasonableness of the agency's position. United Brotherhood 

of Carpenters and Joiners v. NLRB, 891 F.2d 1160, 1163 (5'h Cir. 1990). The inquiry examines 

the totality of the circumstances surrounding the government's adoption of its position. Smith v. 

Principi, 343 F .3d 1358, 1362 (Fed.Cir. 2003). 

The FAA's position consists of more than the quality of the allegations of its complaint. 

It also comprises the agency's posture in supporting the allegations during the pendency of the 

proceeding. Krecioch v. United States, 316 F.3d 684,689 (7th Cir. 2002). 

5 
An allegation is considered to be substantially justified when it has a reasonable basis in 

law and fact. Pierce v. Undenvood, 487 U.S. 552,565 (1988); 14 CFR 14.04(a); Michael 

Edward Wendt, FAA Order 93-9 (March 25, 1993), p. 3. The charge must be justified to the 

degree that could satisfy a reasonable person. The standard is met ifthere is a "genuine dispute," 

or if reasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness of the contested matter. Pierce v. 

Undenvood, p. 565. The agency must show (a) a reasonable basis in truth for the facts alleged; 

(b) a reasonable basis in law for the legal theory propounded; and (3) a reasonable connection 

between facts and theory. Valley Air Services, Inc., FAA Order No. 95-27 (December 19, 1995), 

p. 6, pet. for reconsid denied, FAA Order No. 96-15 (May 3, 1996); Smith v. National 

Transportation Safety Board, 992 F.2d 849, 852 (8th Cir. 1993). 

Failure to prevail does not raise a presumption of lack of substantial justification. An 

agency's defeat in the underlying action on the merits does not raise a presumption that its 

position was not substantially justified under EAJA (emphasis in original). Nancy Rene Floyd, 

FAA Order No. 2006-4,2006 WL 465372 (February 10, 2006), p. 5; S & H Riggers & Erectors 

v. OSHA, 672 F.2d 426,430 (5th Cir. 1982). Nor must the agency demonstrate that it had a 

substantial likelihood of prevailing to prove that its litigation position was substantially justified. 

Kiareldeen v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 542, 554 (3'd Cir. 2001); Michael Edward Wendt, FAA Order 

93-9, 1993 WL 833111 (March25, 1993). 

Turner v. N TS.B., held: 1 

" ... Because the EAJA is a statute of general application, we do not defer to the 

NTSB's or to any one agency's interpretation of it. See, e.g., Contractor's Sand & 

Gravel, Inc. v. Fed Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 199 F.3d 1335, 1339 

(D.C.Cir.2000) (court not "bound to defer to the agency's construction" of the 

EAJA because "[it] is a statute of general application and not one committed to 

administration by the Connnission or the Secretary"). 

1 608 F.3d 12, 391 U.S.App.D.C. 90 (June 8, 2010) 

6 
This court has distilled from Buckhannon2 

a three-part test for determining whether a 

party has "prevailed": 

(1) there must be a "court-ordered change in the legal relationship" of the parties; (2) the 

judgment must be in favor of the party seeking the fees; and (3) the judicial 

pronouncement must be accompanied by judicial relief. 

IV. Analysis 

In the United States, parties are ordinarily required to bear their own attorney's fees-the 

prevailing party is not entitled to collectfrom the loser. Under this "American Ru1e," we follow 

"a general practice of not awarding fees to a prevailing party absent explicit statutory authority."3 

A. (5 USC. §504(a)(l)): An agency that conducts an adversary adjudication shall 

award, to a prevailing party other than the United States, fees and other expenses 

incurred by that party in connection with that proceeding, unless the adjudicative 

officer of the agency fmds that the position of the agency was substantially 

justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. Whether or not the 

position of the agency was substantially justified shall be determined on the basis 

of the administrative record, as a whole, which is made in the adversary 

adjudication for which fees and other expenses are sought. 

After an evidentiary hearing and consideration of all the testimony and evidence we 

found and concluded that FAA proved the allegations of the Complaint. Upon appeal the 

Complaint was withdraw and the matter was dismissed with prejudice. Our analysis is set forth 

in our ID and incorporated herein by reference in so far as it is pertinent to this decision. 

B. (5 USC. §504(a)(2)) reads: 

A party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, [emphasis added] 

within thirty days of a fmal disposition in the adversary adjudication, submit to 

the agency an application which shows that the party is a prevailing party and is 

eligible to receive an award under this section, and the amount sought, including 

an itemized statement from any attorney, agent, or expert witness representing or 

appearing in behalf of the party stating the actual time expended and the rate at 

which fees and other expenses were computed. The party shall also allege that 

2 Buckhannon Bd and Care Home. Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services, 532 U.S. 598, 

121 S.Ct. 1835 (May 29, 2001). See also Scarbrough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401, 124 S.Ct. 1856 (May 3, 2004). 3 Buckhannon Bd and Care Home. Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services, 532 U.S. 598, 

121 S.Ct. 1835. at page 6. 

7 
the position of the agency was not substantially justified. When the United States 

appeals the underlying merits of an adversary adjudication, no decision on an 

application for fees and other expenses in connection with that adversary 

adjudication shall be made under this section until a final and unreviewable 

decision is rendered by the court on the appeal or until the underlying merits of 

the case have been fmally determined pursuant to the appeal. 

The FAA's rules implementing the statute track 5 US. C. §504 and are set forth 

hereinabove. (14 C.F.R. §14.04). 

Trans' Application was timely filed. 

Trans' Application included an itemized statement from Trans' attorney, agent, or expert 

witness representing or appearing in behalf of the party stating the actual time expended and the 

rate at which fees and other expenses were computed. 

Trans' Application alleged that the position of the FAA was not substantially justified. 

It is also a requirement of 5 US. C. §504 and (14 C.F.R. §14. 04) that the " ... application 

which shows ... that the party is ... is eligible to receive an award under this section ... " 

C. Eligibility 

5 US. C. §504 provides: 

(b)(l) (B) "party" means a party, as defined in section 551(3) of this title, who 

is (i) an individual whose net worth did not exceed $2,000,000 at the time the 

adversary adjudication was initiated, or (ii) any owner of an unincorporated 

business, or any partnership, corporation, association, unit of local 

government, or organization, the net worth of which did not exceed 

$7,000,000 at the time the adversary adjudication was initiated, and which 

had not more than 500 employees at the time the adversary adjudication was 

initiated; except that an organization described in section 50l(c)(3) of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) exempt from taxation under 

section 501(a) of such Code, or a cooperative association as defined in section 

15(a) of the Agricultural Marketing Act (12 U.S.C. 1141j(a)), may be a party 

regardless of the net worth of such organization or cooperative association or for 

purposes of subsection (a)(4), a small entity as defined in section 601...(emphasis 

added) 

The FAA's implementing regulation (14 C.F.R. §14.04 (b)) states: 

8 
The application shall also include a statement that the applicant's net worth does 

not exceed $2 million (if an individual) or $7 million (for all other applicants, 

including their affiliates) at the time the adversary adjudication was initiated. 

D. (1) there must be a "court-ordered change in the legal relationship" of the parties; 

With the Administrator's dismissal of the FAA's Complaint, there was a change in the 

legal relationship of the parties. 

E. (2) the judgment must be in favor of the party seeking the fees; and 

Trans was the prevailing party and is the party seeking the fees. 4 

F. (3) the judicial pronouncement must be accompanied by judicial relief. 

The judicial relief was dismissal of the FAA's complaint. 

V. Findings 

A. Adversarial 

We fmd the FAA's proceeding against Trans was an adversary adjudication. 

B. Prevailing Party 

We find Trans was the prevailing party, there was a "court-ordered change in the legal 

relationship" of the parties; (2) the judgment was in favor of the party (Trans) seeking the fees; 

and (3) the judicial pronouncement was accompanied by judicial relief (dismissal of the 

complaint). (See Thomas v. Nat'l Sci. Found., 330 F.3d 486, 491 (D.C.Cir.2003). Turner v. 

NTS.B., supra.) 

C. Application 

We find Trans' application identified the applicant and the proceeding for which an 

award was sought. The application asserted that Trans was the prevailing party, contained an 

4 See Thomas v. NS.F., 330 F.3d 486, 356 U.S.App.D.C. 222 (June 3, 2003). 

9 
itemization of fees and other expenses incurred by that party in connection with that proceeding, 

and alleged the FAA's position was not substantially justified. 

The application failed to identifY whether the applicant was an individual, failed 

to state the number of employees of the applicant and failed to describe briefly the type 

and purpose of its organization or business. 

The application also failed to include a statement that the applicant's net worth did 

not exceed $2 million (if an individual) or $7 million (for all other applicants, including 

their affiliates) at the time the adversary adjudication was initiated. 

Trans failed to establish it was a party entitled to relief under 5 US. C. §504, et 

seq, and/or 14 C.FR. 14.10. 

D. Substantial Justification 

As set forth hereinabove, "Substantial justification" connotes an active, searching inquiry 

into the quality of evidence advanced and the overall reasonableness of the agency's position. 

The inquiry examines the totality of the circumstances surrounding the govermnent' s adoption of 

its position. 

An allegation is considered to be substantially justified when it has a reasonable basis in 

law and fact. The charge must be justified to the degree that could satisfy a reasonable person. 

The standard is met if there is a "genuine dispute," or if reasonable people could differ as to the 

appropriateness ofthe contested matter. The agency must show (a) a reasonable basis in truth 

for the facts alleged; (b) a reasonable basis in law for the legal theory propounded; and (3) a 

reasonable connection between facts and theory. 

Failure to prevail does not raise a presumption of lack of substantial justification. An 

agency's defeat in the underlying action on the merits does not raise a presumption that its 

10 
position was not substantially justified under EAJA (emphasis in original). Nor must the agency 

demonstrate that it had a substantial likelihood of prevailing to prove that its litigation position 

was substantially justified. 

We need not decide this issue as the EAJA application can be decided on other grounds. 

VI. Conclusions 

Trans has failed to allege and/or prove it is a party entitled to relief under 5 US. C. 

§504, et seq, and/or 14 C.F.R. 14.1 0. by failing to file a complete application. The 

application failed to identify whether the applicant was an individual, failed to state the 

number of employees of the applicant and failed to describe briefly the type and purpose 

of its organization or business. The application also failed to include a statement that the 

applicant's net worth did not exceed $2 million (if an individual) or $7 million (for all 

other applicants, including their affiliates) at the time the adversary adjudication was 

initiated. 

5 US. C. §504 states: 

(a) ... (2) A party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, within thirty 

days of a final disposition in the adversary adjudication, submit to the agency an 

application which shows that the party is a prevailing party and is eligible to 

receive an award under this section, and the amount sought, including an 

itemized statement from any attorney, agent, or expert witness representing or 

appearing in behalf of the party stating the actual time expended and the rate at 

which fees and other expenses were computed. The party shall also allege that 

the position ofthe agency was not substantially justified. When the United States 

appeals the underlying merits of an adversary adjudication, no decision on an 

application for fees and other expenses in connection with that adversary 

adjudication shall be made under this section until a final and unreviewable 

decision is rendered by the court on the appeal or until the underlying merits of 

the case have been fmally determined pursuant to the appeal. .. (emphasis added) 

(b)(l) For the purposes of this section--

11 
(B) "party" means a party, as defmed in section 551(3) of this title, who is (i) an 

individual whose net worth did not exceed $2,000,000 at the time the adversary 

adjudication was initiated, or (ii) any owner of an unincorporated business, or any 

partnership, corporation, association, unit of local government, or organization, the 

net worth of which did not exceed $7,000,000 at the time the adversary adjudication 

was initiated, and which had not more than 500 employees at the time the adversary 

adjudication was initiated ... (emphasis added) 

The FAA's implementing regulation (see 14 C. FR. §14.04) states: 

(b) The application shall also include a statement that the applicant's net 

worth does not exceed $2 million (if an individual) or $7 million (for all other 

applicants, including their affiliates) at the time the adversary adjudication 

was initiated ... (emphasis added) 

" ... No EAJA application can be considered and fees awarded until all of the 

jurisdictional requirements are met ... (appellant may not be awarded attorney's fees under the 

EAJA unless all requirements are met)".5 "Since the EAJA is a waiver of the sovereign 

immunity of the United States, its provisions are to be strictly construed in the government's 

favor". 6 "Under the EAJA, the appellant is also required to show that he or she is a party eligible 

for an EAJA award". 7 "An EAJA applicant must meet a net worth requirement by indicating a 

net worth not exceeding $2,000,000 ... Although a Court retains "substantial discretion" in fixing 

the amount of an EAJA award, eligibility for such an award must be established by meeting the 

conditions of ... The eligibility provision pertains to eligibility at the time the appeal was filed. 

A showing of eligibility may be made by stating in the application that the appellant's net worth 

at the time the appeal was filed did not exceed $2 million". 8 

5 Bazalo v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 304,65 USLW 2192 (Aug 16, 1996) at page 7. 6 Id. 

7 Id, at page 8. 8 Id. 

12 
To date no information has been submitted which would show that Trans was an eligible 

party nor had its application been amended . 

. . . Although the above cited cases all deal with late filed applications rather than 

an application which is timely filed but defective, the rationale requiring strict 

construction which bars an action on the former also applies to and bars an action 

on the latter. The statutory language and legislative history of the EAJA, although 

not couched in the language of jurisdiction, indicate that Congress intended the 

filing deadlines to be strictly enforced and considered the showing of eligible 

status to be an integral part of filing. The statute states in plain language that a 

party seeking fees "shall, within thirty days offmal judg-ment in the action, 

submit to the court an application ... which shows that the party ... is eligible to 

receive and award under this subsection . .. Nothing in the language of the statute 

or its legislative history suggests that a defective application which is not 

completed until after the 30 day limit has run is any less fatal to a court's 

jurisdiction than a late filed application. Indeed, the requirement of showing 

eligible status is contained in the same sentence as the 30 day filing . 9 reqmrement ... 

We find that satisfying eligibility for an EAJA award is jurisdictional. 

Failure to allege eligibility is a jurisdictional defect. 

WHEREFORE, Trans' within filed Application for Attorney's Fees and Other Expenses 

having been read and considered it be and is hereby ORDERED Trans' Application be and is 

hereby DENIED in its entirety.10 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

9 US. v. Hopkins Dodge Sales, Inc., 707 F.Supp. 1078 (Feb 2, 1989), at page 3. See also Scarbrough v. Principi, 

541 U.S. 401, 124 S.Ct. 1856 (May 3, 2004); Soriano v. U.S., 352 U.S. 270,77 S.Ct. 269, 1 L.Ed.2d 306 (Jan 14, 

1957). 

10 This decision becomes fmal 30 days after its issuance unless a party appeals or the FAA Decisionmaker takes 

review under his/her own initiative. 14 C.F.R. §14.28(a). The appeal must be either (a) mailed to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W .. , Washington, D.C. 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket 

Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000; or (b) delivered personally or via expedited courier 

service to the Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 

2W1000, Washington, D.C. 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

13 
SERVICE LIST 

Docket No. FAA-2014-1117 

(Equal Access to Justice Act) 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl0001 

ONE COPY 

Paul R. Borth, Applicant's Counsel 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

TEL: 847-724-5520 

FAX: 815-356-7042 

Jessica E. Kabaz-Gomez, Agency's Counsel 

Enforcement Division AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-7395 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, nse the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wrigbt Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

14