# RECEIVED
SERVED: August 26, 

### 2015 

## AlJG 27 2015 

## HEARING DOCKET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
APPLICATION OF TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD. DocketNo. FAA-2014- 1117 (Equal Access to Justice Action)
INITIAL DECISION DENYING APPLICATION FORATTORNEY'S FEES AND OTHEREXPENSES I. Background This application under the Equal Access to Justice Act (hereinafter "EAJA"), 

### 5 US.C. 

### §504, originated from a proceeding inwhichthe Federal AviationAdministration (hereinafter "FAA") alleged Trans North Aviation, LTD, violated 14 CFR 

### § 135.267(d), which states: Each assignmentunderparagraph (b) ofthis section must provide for at least 10 consecutive hours ofrest during the 24-hourperiodthat precedes the planned completion time ofthe assignment. The FAA asked for a civil penalty of$7,500. Trans NorthAviation, 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 inthe amount of$7,500. OnNovember 10,2014, Trans filed its appeal. OnDecember 1, 2014 the FAA decided to withdraw its complaint against Trans andthereafter withdrew our order assessing the civilpenalty against Trans North. On December 2, 2014, Trans filed its motion to dismiss the case withprejudice. OnDecember 3, 2014, the FAA filed its Motion in Support ofTrans' motionto dismiss. On December 4, 2014, the Administrator granted Trans' Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the complaint and proceedings withprejudice. Thereafter Trans timely filed its EAJA Application for Fees.

II. EAJAPetition Trans avers thatwhile 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 inpertinent part: (a)(l) An agency that conducts an adversary adjudication shall award, to a prevailing party other thanthe 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 ofthe agency was substantiallyjustified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. Whether or not the position ofthe agency was substantiallyjustified shall be determined on the basis ofthe administrative record, as a whole, which is made inthe adversary adjudication for whichfees and other expenses are sought. (2) A party seeking an award offees and other expenses shall, within thirty days ofa final disposition inthe adversary adjudication, submit to the agency an application which shows thatthe party is a prevailing party and is eligible to receive an awardunderthis section, and the amount sought, including an itemized statement from any attorney, agent, or expert witness representing or appearing in behalfofthe 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 substantiallyjustified. When the United States appeals the underlying merits ofan adversary adjudication, no decision on an application for fees and other expenses in connection withthat adversary adjudication shall be made under this section until a final and unreviewable decision is rendered by the court onthe appeal or until the underlying merits ofthe case have been fmally determined pursuant to the appeal. (3) The adjudicative officer ofthe agency may reduce the amountto be awarded, or deny an award, to the extent that the party during the course ofthe proceedings engaged in conduct which unduly and unreasonably protracted the final resolution 2ofthe matter in controversy. The decision ofthe adjudicative officer ofthe agency under this section shall be made a part ofthe record containing the final decision ofthe agency and shall include written findings and conclusions and the reason orbasis therefor. The decision ofthe agency on the application for fees and other expenses shall be the final administrative decisionunder 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 bythe agency is substantially in excess ofthe decision ofthe adjudicative officer and is unreasonable when compared with such decision, under the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the adjudicative officer shall award to the party the fees and other expenses related to defending againstthe excessive demand, unless the party has committed a willful violation oflaw or otherwise acted inbad faith, or special circumstances make an award unjust. Fees and expenses awarded under this paragraph shall be paid only as a consequence ofappropriations provided in advance. (b)(l) Forthe purposes ofthis section-- (A) "fees and other expenses" includes the reasonable expenses ofexpert witnesses, the reasonable cost ofany study, analysis, engineering report, test, or project which is found bythe agency to be necessary for the preparation ofthe party's case, and reasonable attorney or agent fees (The amount offees awarded under this section shall be based upon prevailing market rates for the kind and quality ofthe services furnished, except that (i) no expert witness shall be compensated at a rate in excess ofthe highest rate ofcompensation for expert witnesses paid bythe 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 ofqualified attorneys or agents for the proceedings involved,justifies a higher fee.); (B) "party" means a party, as defined in section 551(3) ofthis title, who is (i) an individual whose net worth did not exceed $2,000,000 atthe time the adversary adjudication was initiated, or (ii) any owner ofan unincorporated business, or any partnership, corporation, association, unit oflocal govermnent, or organization, the net worth ofwhich did not exceed $7,000,000 at the time the adversary adjudication was initiated, and whichhad not more than 500 employees at the time the adversary adjudication was initiated; except that an organization described in section 50l(c)(3) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 50l(c)(3)) exempt from taxation under section 50l(a) ofsuch Code, or a cooperative association as defmed in section 15(a) ofthe Agricultural Marketing Act (12 U.S.C. 114lj(a)), may be a party regardless ofthe net worth ofsuch organization or cooperative association or for purposes ofsubsection (a)(4), a small entity as defmed in section 601;


### 3(C) "adversary adjudication" means (i) an adjudication under section 554 ofthis title in whichthe position ofthe United States is represented by counsel or otherwise, but excludes an adjudication for the purpose ofestablishing or fixing a rate or for the purpose ofgranting or renewing a license, (ii) any appeal ofa decision made pursuantto section 7103 oftitle 41 before an agency board of contract appeals as provided in section 7105 oftit1e 41, (iii) any hearing conducted under chapter 38 oftitle 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 lawjudge, a hearing officer or examiner, or otherwise, who presided at the adversary adjudication; (E) "position ofthe agency" means, in addition to the position taken bythe agency in the adversary adjudication, the action or failure to act bythe agency upon which the adversary adjudication is based; exceptthat fees and other expenses may notbe awarded to a party for any portion ofthe adversary adjudication inwhich the partyhas unreasonably protractedthe proceedings; and (F) "demand" means the express demand ofthe agency which led to the adversary adjudication, but does not include a recitation bythe agency ofthe maximmn statutory penalty (i) in the administrative complaint, or (ii) elsewhere when accompanied by an express demand for a lesser amount.
The EAJArequires an agency conducting an "adversary adjudication" to award fees and other expenses to a prevailing party (other thanthe United States) unless the position ofthe agency was "substantiallyjustified" 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 offees and expenses under the Act shall identifY the applicant and the proceeding for which an award is sought. The application shall show thatthe applicant has prevailed and identifY the position ofthe agency inthe proceeding that the applicant alleges was not substantiallyjustified. Unless the applicant is an individual, the application shall also state the nmnber of employees ofthe applicant and describe briefly the type and purpose ofits organization or business. (b) The application shall also include a statement thatthe applicant's net worth does not exceed $2 million (ifan individual) or $7 million (for all other

4applicants, including their affiliates) at the time the adversary adjudication was initiated. However, an applicant may omitthis statement if: (1) Itattaches a copy ofa ruling bythe Internal Revenue Service that it qualifies as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) ofthe Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)), or inthe case ofa 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 beliefthat it qualifies under such section; or (2) It states that it is a cooperative association as defined in section 15(a) ofthe Agricultural Marketing Act (12 U.S.C. 1141j(a)). (c) The application shall state the amount offees and expenses for which an award is sought. (d) The application may also include any other matters thatthe applicant wishes this agency to consider in determining whether and in what amount an award should be made. (e) The application shall be signed bythe applicant or an authorized officer or attorney for the applicant. It shall also contain or be accompanied by a written verification under oath orunder penalty ofperjury that the information provided inthe application is true and correct.
The burden ofproofthat an award shouldnot be made rests withthe agency (14 C.F.R. 

### §14.04(a)). "Substantialjustification" connotes an active, searching inquiry into the quality of evidence advanced andthe overall reasonableness ofthe agency's position. UnitedBrotherhood of Carpenters andJoiners v. NLRB, 891 F.2d 1160, 1163 (5'h Cir. 1990). The inquiry examines the totality ofthe circumstances surrounding the government's adoption ofits position. Smith v. Principi, 343 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed.Cir. 2003). The FAA'sposition consists ofmore than the quality ofthe allegations ofits complaint. It also comprises the agency's posture in supporting the allegations during the pendency ofthe proceeding. Krecioch v. UnitedStates, 316 F.3d 684,689 (7th Cir. 2002).

5An allegation is consideredto be substantiallyjustified 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 bejustifiedto the degree that could satisfy a reasonable person. The standard is metifthere is a "genuine dispute,"

or ifreasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness ofthe contested matter. Pierce v. Undenvood, p. 565. The agency must show (a) a reasonable basis intruth for the facts alleged; (b) a reasonable basis inlaw for the legal theory propounded; and (3) a reasonable connection between facts and theory. Valley AirServices, 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 oflack ofsubstantialjustification. An agency's defeat inthe underlying action onthe merits does notraise a presumptionthat its positionwas not substantiallyjustifiedunder 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 ofprevailing to prove that its litigationposition was substantiallyjustified. 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 ofgeneral application, we do not defer to the NTSB's orto any one agency's interpretation ofit. 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) (courtnot "boundto defer to the agency's construction" ofthe EAJA because "[it] is a statute ofgeneral 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) 6This court has distilled from Buckhannon2 a three-part test for determining whether a party has "prevailed": (1) there must be a "court-ordered change inthe legal relationship" ofthe parties; (2) the judgmentmust be in favor ofthe party seeking the fees; and (3) thejudicial pronouncement must be accompanied byjudicialrelief. IV. Analysis In the United States, parties are ordinarily required to bear their own attorney's fees-the prevailing party is not entitled to collectfromthe loser. Under this "American Ru1e," we follow "ageneral practice ofnot 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 thanthe United States, fees and other expenses incurred bythat party in connection with that proceeding, unless the adjudicative officer ofthe agency fmds that the position ofthe agency was substantially justified orthat special circumstances make an award unjust. Whether or not the position ofthe agency was substantiallyjustified shall be determined onthe basis ofthe 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 ofall the testimony and evidence we found and concluded that FAAprovedthe allegations ofthe Complaint. Upon appeal the Complaint was withdraw and the matter was dismissed with prejudice. Our analysis is set forth in our ID and incorporated hereinbyreference in so far as it is pertinentto this decision. B. 

### (5 USC. §504(a)(2)) reads: A party seeking an award offees and other expenses shall, [emphasis added] within thirty days ofa fmal disposition inthe 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 inbehalfofthe 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 Bdand Care Home. Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health andHuman 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 Bdand Care Home. Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health andHuman Services, 532 U.S. 598, 121 S.Ct. 1835. at page 6. 7the position ofthe agency was not substantiallyjustified. When the United States appeals the underlying merits ofan adversary adjudication, no decision on an application for fees and other expenses inconnection withthat adversary adjudication shall 

### be made under this section until a final and unreviewable decision is rendered bythe court onthe appeal or until the underlying merits of the case have beenfmally 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' Applicationwas timely filed. Trans' Application included an itemized statement from Trans' attorney, agent, or expert witness representing or appearing inbehalfofthe party stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other expenses were computed. Trans' Application allegedthatthe position ofthe FAA was not substantiallyjustified. Itis also a requirement of5 US.

### C. §504 and (14 C.F.R. §14. 04) that the "...application which shows
... thatthe 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) ofthis 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 ofan unincorporated business, or any partnership, corporation, association, unit oflocal government, or organization, the net worth ofwhich 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) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) exempt from taxation under section 501(a) ofsuch Code, or a cooperative association as defined in section 15(a) ofthe Agricultural Marketing Act (12 U.S.C. 1141j(a)), may be a party regardless ofthe net worth ofsuch organization or cooperative association or for purposes ofsubsection (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: 

### 8The application shall also include a statementthat the applicant's net worth does not exceed $2 million (ifan 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 inthe legal relationship" ofthe parties; Withthe Administrator's dismissal ofthe FAA's Complaint, there was a change inthe legal relationship ofthe parties. E. (2) thejudgmentmust be in favor ofthe party seeking the fees; and Trans was the prevailing party and is the party seeking the fees. 4 F. (3) thejudicialpronouncement must be accompanied byjudicial relief. Thejudicial reliefwas dismissal ofthe 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 inthe legal relationship" ofthe parties; (2) thejudgmentwas in favor ofthe party (Trans) seeking the fees; and (3) thejudicial pronouncement was accompanied byjudicial relief(dismissal ofthe 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 andthe 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). 9itemization offees and other expenses incurred by that party in connection with that proceeding, and alleged the FAA's position was not substantiallyjustified. The application failed to identifY whether the applicant was an individual, failed to state the number ofemployees ofthe applicant and failed to describe briefly the type and purpose ofits organization or business. The application also failed to include a statementthat the applicant's net worth did not exceed $2 million (ifan 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 reliefunder 5 US. C. §504, et 

### seq, and/or 14 C.FR. 14.10. D. Substantial Justification As set forth hereinabove, "Substantialjustification" connotes an active, searching inquiry into the quality ofevidence advanced andthe overall reasonableness ofthe agency's position. The inquiry examines the totality ofthe circumstances surrounding the govermnent's adoption of its position. 

### An allegation is consideredto be substantiallyjustifiedwhen ithas a reasonable basis in law and fact. The charge must bejustifiedto the degree that could satisfy a reasonable person. The standard is met ifthere is a "genuine dispute," or ifreasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness ofthe contested matter. The agency must show (a) a reasonable basis intruth for the facts alleged; (b) a reasonable basis in law for the legal theory propounded; and (3) a reasonable connection between facts andtheory. Failure to prevail does not raise a presumption oflack ofsubstantialjustification. 

### An agency's defeat inthe underlying action on the merits does notraise a presumption that its

10position was not substantiallyjustified under EAJA (emphasis in original). Nor mustthe agency demonstrate that it had a substantial likelihood ofprevailing to prove that its litigation position
was substantiallyjustified. We need not decide this issue as the EAJA application canbe decided on other grounds. VI. Conclusions Trans has failed to allege and/or prove it is a party entitled to reliefunder 5 US.

### C. §504, et seq, and/or 14 C.F.R. 14.10. by failing to file a complete application. The application failed to identify whether the applicant was an individual, failed to state the number ofemployees ofthe applicant and failed to describe brieflythe type and purpose ofits organization or business. The application also failed to include a statement thatthe applicant's net worth did not exceed $2 million (ifan 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 offees and other expenses shall, withinthirty days ofa final disposition in the adversary adjudication, submit to the agency an application which shows thatthe 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 inbehalfofthe 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 substantiallyjustified. Whenthe United States appeals the underlying merits ofan 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 ofthis section--

11(B) "party" means a party, as defmed in section 551(3) ofthis 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 ofan unincorporated business, or any partnership, corporation, association, unit oflocal government, or organization, the net worth ofwhich 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 (ifan 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 awardeduntil all ofthe 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 ofthe sovereign immunity ofthe United States, its provisions are to be strictly construed in the government's favor". 6 "Underthe EAJA, the appellant is also requiredto showthat he or she is a party eligible for anEAJA award". 7 "AnEAJA applicant must meet a net worth requirement byindicating a net worth not exceeding $2,000,000
... Although a Court retains "substantial discretion" infixing the amount ofan EAJA award, eligibility for such an award must be established by meeting the conditions of ... The eligibilityprovision pertains to eligibility at the time the appeal was filed. A showing ofeligibility maybe made by stating inthe applicationthatthe appellant's networth 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, atpage 8. 8 Id. 12To date no informationhas been submitted which would showthat Trans was an eligible party nor had its applicationbeen 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 whichbars an action onthe former also applies to and bars an action onthe latter. The statutory language and legislative history ofthe EAJA, although not couched in the language of jurisdiction, indicate that Congress intended the filing deadlines to be strictly enforced and consideredthe showing ofeligible status to be an integral part offiling. The statute states inplain language that a party seeking fees "shall, withinthirty days offmaljudg-ment in the action, submitto the court an application
... which shows that the party ... is eligible to receive and award under this subsection
... Nothing inthe language ofthe statute or its legislative history suggests that a defective application which is not completed until after the 30 day limithas run is any less fatal to a court's jurisdictionthan a late filed application. Indeed, the requirement ofshowing eligible status is contained inthe same sentence as the 30 day filing

. 9 reqmrement... We find that satisfying eligibility for an EAJA award isjurisdictional. Failure to allege eligibility is ajurisdictional defect. WHEREFORE, Trans' within filed Application for Attorney's Fees and Other Expenses having beenread and considered it be and is hereby ORDERED Trans' Applicationbe and is hereby DENIED inits 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 underhis/her own initiative. 14 C.F.R. §14.28(a). The appeal must be either (a) mailedto the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W
.., Washington, D.C. 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000; or (b) deliveredpersonally orvia 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. 

### 13SERVICE 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 2Wl000 1 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 ofthe ChiefCounsel 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 ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536

1 Service was byU.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-Suite2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.


### 14