UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATI<3^Nv i I It ^ |5! : . FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N * ' / \l O o P 2:1 3 WASHINGTON , D C I n th e Matte r

of ; GREE N AVIATIO N MANAGEMEN T CO. . LL C FAA Orde r

No . 2011- 9 Docke t No . CP07EA000 3 (EAJA ) FDM S No . FAA-2007-26989 ' Served : Jun e 13,201 1 DECISIO N AN D ORDER ^ Th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA" ) brough t acivi l penalt y actio n agains t Gree n Aviatio n Managemen t Company , LLC , d/b/ aGree n Ai r ("Gree n Air" ) fo

r allegedl y violatin g severa l federal aviatio n regulations. ^ Th e FA A sough t a$33,00 0 civi l penalty . Later , th e FA A withdre w it s complain t an dth e AL J dismisse dth e cas e with prejudice i n accordanc e wit h th e requiremen t o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.215 . Gree n Ai r the n applie dfor

attorney' s fee s unde r

5 U.S.C . § 50 4 o f

th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac t ("EAJA") . Administrativ e La w Judg e ("ALJ" ) Isaa c D . Benki n denie dGree n Air' s

' Generally , material s file

di n the FA A Hearing Docke

t (except fo r material s file

di n securit y cases ) ar

e als o availabl e fo

r viewing a t www.regulations.gov . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.210(e)(1) . ^ The Administrator' s civil penalt y decisions , alon g wit

h indexe s o

f th e decisions , the rule s of practice , an

dothe r information , ar

e availabl e o

n th e Interne

t a t th e following address : www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/AGC400 / Civil_Penalty . I

n addition , Thomso

n Reuters/Wes t

Publishin g publishe s Federa l Aviatio n Decisions . Finally , th e decision s ar e availabl e through LEXI S (TRAN S library ) an dWestLa w (FTRAN-FA

A database) . Fo

r additiona l information , see th e We

b site . ^ Specifically , th e FA

A allegedtha

t Gree n Ai r violate dth e following regulations : (1)1 4 C.F.R . § 119.5(1 ) (n o perso n ma y operat e a n aircraf t unde r Par t 13 5 i n violatio n of appropriat e operation s specifications) ; (2 ) 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.34 3 (n o certificat e holde r ma y us e a person as acrewmembe

r unles s tha t crewmembe

r ha s completedth e appropriat e training) ; an

d(3 ) 14 C.F.R . § 91.13(a) (n o person ma y operat e a n aircraf t i n acareles s o

r reckles s manne

r s o a s to endange r th e lif e o r propert y o f another) .applicatio n o n th e groun dtha t th e agency' s positio n was substantiall y justified. " Thi s decisio n hold s tha t

a s athreshol dmatter , Gree n Ai r wa s no t a"prevailin g party " withi n th e meanin g o f

th e EAJA , an dtherefor e Gree n Ai r wa s no t eligibl e for

an awar do f attorney' s fees . Thus , i t

i s no t necessar y t o reac h th e issu e o f whethe r th e FA A was substantiall y justifie di n it s prosecutio n o f th e case . Th e ALJ' s denia l o f Gree n Air' s applicatio n for

fee s i s affirmed. ^ I . Fact s Gree n Ai r

i s an on-deman daircraf

t charte r company tha t

hold s a n ai r carrie r certificat e unde r

1 4 C.F.R . Par t

135 . I t operate dacharte r

fligh t fromMorristown , Ne w Jersey , t o Nassau , Bahamas , o n Decembe r 30 , 2005 . Th e aircraft' s retur n tri p o n Januar y 2 , 2006 , wa s fromNassau , Bahamas , t o Wilmington , North Carolina , an dfrom ther e t o Morristovra , Ne w Jersey . Th e FA A certificate dth e aircraft , aChallenge r CL-600 , t o fransport not mor e tha n nin e passengers , an dGree n Air' s operation s specification s authorize dus e o f th e aircraf

t wit h no t mor e tha n nin e passengers . Th e aircraf t ha dtw o pilo t

seat s an dajum p seat

i n additio n t o nin e passenge r seats . Durin g th e flights, th e aircraf t ha do n boar d Captai n Daly , wh o was th e pilot-in-command , Captai n DeSantis , wh o wa s th e second-in

command , nin e passengers , an daperso n whos e rol e an dstatu s wer e th e subjec t o f disput e - i . e. , Eri n Daly , th e daughte r o f Captai n Daly . Th e FA A asserte dtha t Ms . Dal y

" * A cop y of

th e ALJ' s orde

r denyin g fee s an

dexpense s i s attached . * Gree n request s tha

t th e Administrator

orde r furthe r proceeding s i

f necessar y fo r resolutio n o f

the case . (Applicant' s Respons e t o Orde r fo r Furthe r Briefin g a t 1. ) Th e reques t i s denied . N o suc

h furthe r proceeding s ar

e necessary .wa s eithe r a n impermissibl e extr apassenge r o r a n unqualifie dflight

attendant. * Gree n Air' s quot e for

th e charte r

flight include dan "attendant " for $1,600 . Th e tri p lo g prepare db y Gree n Air' s custome r servic e representativ e liste dMs . Dal y a s "FA. ' Whe n Captai n Dal y transmitte darepor t t o th e U.S . Custom s an dBorde r Patro l th e day befor e th e flight, th e repor t liste dMs . Dal y a s "crew. " Finally , th e custom s inspecto r i n th e Bahama s reporte dtha t ther e wer e nin e passenger s an dthre e crewmember s o n board . II . FAA' s Civi l Penalt y Actio n Agains t Gree n Ai r O n Februar y 6 , 2007 , th e FA A filed acomplain t allegin g th e following : •

• O n eac h flight. Gree n Ai r carrie d1 0 passenger s i n violatio n o f it s operation s specifications . Th e loa dmanifests , whic h indicate dnin e passenger s rathe r tha n 10 , faile d accuratel y t o describ e th e numbe r o f passenger s an dtota l weigh t o f th e loade daircraft . Gree n Ai r use dth e 10t

h passenge r

(Ms . Daly , Captai n Daly' s daughter ) a s aflight attendan t eve n thoug h Gree n Ai r

di dnot hav e a n approve dflight attendan t trainin g progra man dMs . Dal y was no t adequatel y trained . A s aresul t

o f carryin g mor e tha n th e authorize dniunbe r o f passengers , operatin g withou t

th e accurat e tota l weigh t o f th e loade daircraft , an d usin g aflight

attendan t wh o was no t

appropriatel y trained . Gree n Ai r operate dth e aircraf

t i n acareles s o r

reckles s manne r

s o a s t o endange r

th e live s an dpropert y o f

others . Gree n Ai r violate d(1 ) 1 4 C.F.R . § 119.5(1 ) (n o perso n ma y operat e a n aircraf t unde r Par t 13 5 i n violatio n o f

appropriat e operation s specifications) ; (2 ) 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.34 3 (n o certificat e holde r ma y us e a perso n a s acrewmembe r

unles s tha t

crewmembe r

ha s complete dth e appropriat e training) ; an d(3 ) 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13(a ) (n o perso n ma y operat e a n aircraf t i n acareles s o r

reckles s manne r

s o a s t o endange r

th e lif e o r propert y o f

another) . Unde r 4 9 U.S.C . § 46301(a)(5) , Gree n Air, i f asmal l business , i s subjec t t o acivi l penalt y o f

n o mor e than $11,00 0 for eac h violation . Th e applicabl e regulation s do no t requir e atraine dflight

attendan t to b e o n board .• Unde r th e fact s an dcircumstance s o f th e case , acivi l penalt y o f $33,00 0 i s appropriate . I n it s answe r

t o th e complaint , date dFebruar y 9 , 2007 , Gree n Ai r denie dthat :

• i t carrie d1 0 passenger s i n violatio n o f it s operation s specifications ;

• th e loa dmanifes t

wa s inaccurate ;

• i t use dMs . Dal y a s aflight attendant ;

• i t operate dth e aircraf

t i n acareles s o r

reckles s manner ; an d

• i t i s subjec t

t o acivi l penalty . Gree n Ai r

asserte dth e followin g defenses :

• I t wa s not require dt o establis h o r

maintai n a n approve dflight attendan t trainin g progra munde r

Par t 13 5 becaus e i t

operate daircraf

t wit h fewe r tha n 1 9 seats .

• Ms . Dal y wa s no t

aflight attendan t durin g th e flights an dtherefor e Par t 13 5 di dno t

requir e he r

t o b e trained .

• Ms . Dal y wa s anon-require dcrewmembe r {i.e. , cabi n aide , custome r servic e representative) .

• Th e jum p seat

occupie db y Ms . Dal y was placarde dfor "cre w us e only " - a s such , th e jum p seat

wa s no t apassenge r

seat .

• Ms . Dal y wa s an employe e o f Gree n Ai r

an da s suc h wa s authorize dt o occup y th e jum p seat

unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.85. ^

• Th e loa dmanifest s for th e flights accuratel y describe dth e numbe r o f passenger s an dtota l weigh t o f th e loade daircraft . O n Ma y 31 , 2007 , th e FA A an dGree n Ai r agree dthat , i n exchang e fo r th e FA A

^ Section 135.8 5 provides : The following person s ma

y b e carrie daboar

da n aircraf t without complying wit

h th e passenger-carryin g requirement s of thi s part : (a) A crewmembe

r o r othe r employee of

the certificat

e holde r ... .withdrawin g it s complaint , Gree n Ai r woul dsubmi t

an affidavi t

t o th e FA A statin g that : Ms . Dal y wa s a n employe e o f th e company , n o compan y record s o f he r employmen t presentl y existed , othe r

tha n pa y chec k

stubs , an dn o IR S o r

stat e ta x record s existe da t th e tim e concernin g he r

employment . Gree n Ai r als o agree dnot

t o file a n EAJ A application . Gree n Air, however , di dno t submi t th e affidavit , an dth e cas e wen t forward . Gree n Ai r

filed amotio n styled , "Motio n t o Dismiss, " o n Jun e 1 , 2007 . Gree n Ai r argue di n thi s motio n tha t ther e wer e n o genuin e issue s o f materia l fact , an di t

attache d affidavit s an dothe r

evidentiar y items . Thus , i t wa s actuall y amotio n for decisio n unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.218(f)(5). ' Specifically , Gree n Ai r

argue di n th e Jun e 1 , 2007 , "Motio n t o Dismiss " tha t Ms . Dal y wa s acabi n aid e employe e o f Gree n Air , not

apassenge r

omitte dfromth e manifest . Gree n Ai r

attache da s exhibit s th e following :

• Tw o affidavit s o f

Captai n Jame s Dal y attestin g that : (1 ) Ms . Dal y wa s acabi n aid e whos e responsibilitie s wer e no t safety-relate dbu t

instea d wer e t o serv e foo dan ddrink ; an d(2 ) Ms . Daly' s weigh t wa s include d i n th e loa dmanifests.

• A n affidavi t

o f Ms . Dal y attestin g tha t

sh e wa s anon-require d crewmembe r

i n anon-safety position , tha t he r dutie s include dservin g foo dan ddrink , an dtha t

Gree n Ai r

pai dher .

• Thre e chec k

stubs , al l t o "Eri n Daly, " on e date dDecembe r 7 , 2005 , (almos t amonth-befor e th e flights), i n th e amoun t o f $200.00 , statin g tha t i t wa s fo r " 2 days, " anothe r

date dFebruar y 6 , 2006 , i n th e amoun t o f $2,450.00 , statin g tha t

i t wa s for "Wages, " an dth e final on e date d Apri l 24 , 2006 , i n th e amoun t o f $3,150.00 , statin g tha t

i t wa s for

' Sectio n 13.218(f)(5 ) provide s a s follows : Th e administrativ e la

w judg e shall gran

t aparty' s motion fo

r decision i f the pleadings , depositions , answer s to interrogatories , admissions , matter s tha t th e administrativ e la

w judg e has officiall

y noticed , o

r evidenc e introducedduring th e hearin g sho w tha

t ther e i s no genuine issue of

materia l fac t an dtha t th e part y making th e motion i s entitle dt o adecisio n a s amatte r o f law ."Fligh t Attenden t

(sic). " Th e paye r

wa s not indicate do n an y o f

th e stubs .

• A memorandu mfromth e U.S . Departmen t o f Homelan dSecurity , Custom s an dBorde r

Protectio n (CBP) , indicatin g that , accordin g t o th e Genera l Declaratio n filedb y th e pilot s wit h CPB , ther e wer e three . cre w an dnin e passenger s o n th e Januar y 2 , 2006 , flight.

• NTS B Safet

y Recommendatio n A-06-6 6 throug h -6 9 a t 7 (Novembe r

8 , 2006) , statin g tha t

cabi n aide s wer e no t

require dt o receiv e safet

y trainin g becaus e the y wer e no t require dcrewmembers. '

• A lette r

o f interpretatio n date dMarc h 19 , 1986 , fro mJoh n H . Cassady , Assistan t Chie f Counsel , Regulation s an dEnforcemen t Division , Offic e o f th e Chie f Counsel , FAA , t o Jame s W . Johnson , Ai r Lin e Pilot s Associatio n (ALPA) , statin g tha t "person s othe r

tha n 'fligh t crewanembers ' ma y b e 'crewmembers ' i f the y ar e assigne ddut y durin g flight

time. " Th e FA A filed arespons e t o th e "Motio n t o Dismiss " o n Jun e 16 , 2007 , assertin g tha t materia l fact s remaine di n dispute , includin g whethe r Ms . Dal y wa s an employee , whethe r sh e serve da s anon-require dcrewmember , whethe r sh e occupie dth e jum p seat , an dwhethe r

th e loa dmanifest s include dhe r weight . Th e FA A argue dtha t i f Ms . Dal y wer e workin g o n th e flights, i t migh t hav e bee n a s aflight

attendan t withou t prope r training . Further , th e FA A asserted , ther e wa s nothin g t o sho w tha t sh e wa s not

simpl y flying wit h he r

fathe r t o th e Bahama s for

Ne w Year' s Eve , an dth e AL J neede dt o mak e credibilit y determination s at ahearing . O n Jun e 19 , 2007 , Gree n Ai r filedanothe r

motio n for

summar y disposition . Thi s motio n wa s entitle d"Motio n for Decision, " an din it . Gree n Ai r asserte dincorrectl y tha t th e FA A ha dfaile dt o file arespons e t o it s "Motio n t o Dismiss. " Gree n Ai r aske dth e AL J t o dismis s th e FAA' s complain t with prejudice du e t o th e allege dfailur e t o file a

' The NTS B recommended , however , tha t "an y cabi n personnel o

n .. . Par t 13 5 flights wh o couldb e perceivedb

y passenger s a s equivalen

t t o qualifiedflight

attendant s receiv e basi c FAA-approvedsafet

y training. " Id .response . O n Jun e 28,2007 , th e AL J denie dbot h o f Gree n Air' s motion s for

summar y disposition , rulin g tha t

th e material s submitte db y Gree n Ai r di dnot establis h fact s tha t woul dentitl e Gree n Ai r

t o prevail . Fo r

example , th e AL J stated , th e receipt s showe dtha t o n thre e occasions , Ms . Dal y wa s pai dfo r something , but

the y di dnot

demonstrat e tha t sh e wa s abon afide employe e o f Gree n Air . Accordin g t o th e ALJ , ther e remaine da dispute dissu e o f

materia l fac t

- specifically , wha t

was Ms . Daly' s exac t

statu s durin g th e flights i n question . Th e AL J therefor e schedule dahearin g an dth e partie s pursue d discovery . O n Augus t

3 , 2007 , Gree n Ai r

requeste dreconsideratio n o f th e ALJ' s denia l o f

it s Jun e 1 , 2007 , motio n for

summary disposition . Attache dt o Gree n Air' s motio n fo r reconsideratio n wer e th e followin g exhibits :

• A n affidavi t

fro mElain e Hunt , Gree n Air' s custome r servic e representative , i n whic h sh e averre dtha t Ms . Dal y wa s assigne dth e dutie s o f acabi n o r

flight aid e t o serv e foo dan ddrink s t o th e passenger s an dflight

cre w an dtha t

sh e wa s no t

a n unmanifeste d passenger .

• A n affidavi t

fro mCaptai n Charle s DeSantis , attestin g tha t Ms . Dal y wa s acabi n attendan t

servin g foo dan ddrink . • A n estimat e o f

flight charge s for

Gree n Air' s customer , listin g $1,60 0 for an "attendant. "

• Gree n Air' s flight

schedul e o r

"tri p sheet, " listin g Ms . Dal y a s crew .

• A CB P Electroni c Advanc e Passenge r Informatio n Syste mRepor t listin g Ms . Dal y a s crew .

• A cop y o f

a200 5 IR S for

m109 9 listin g Gree n Ai r a s th e paye r

an d Ms . Dal y a s th e recipien t o f "non-employe e compensation " i n th e amoun t o f $2,100 . Gree n Ai r argue dtha t

th e evidenc e showe dtha t Ms . Dal y wa s it s contrac t employe e an dserve da s acabi n aid e crewmember . I n it s FAA' s repl y t o Gree n Air' s reconsideratio n request , th e FA A attache da newe r affidavi t fro mMs . Hunt , statin g tha t he r first declaratio n wa s incomplet e an dtha t Ms . Dal y wa s expecte dt o b e traine dt o perfor msafet y duties , no t

merel y t o serv e foo d an ddrinks . Th e FA A argue dtha t Ms . Daly' s exac t

statu s remaine dan issu e becaus e o n th e IR S Form109 9 submitte db y Gree n Air, th e compensatio n for Ms . Dal y was labele d "non-employe e compensation. " O n Augus t

21 , 2007 , th e ALJ issue da n orde r denyin g Gree n Air' s Motio n for Reconsideration . Th e AL J note dtha t th e FAA' s affidavi t

o f Ms . Hun t

supporte dth e FAA' s positio n an dtha t

i n thi s affidavit , Ms . Hun t repudiate di n par t

th e earlier

affidavi t submitte db y Gree n Air . Th e AL J state dtha t i t was "difficul t

t o imagin e acas e les s suitabl e for

dispositio n b y summar y judgment. " Orde r Denyin g Motio n fo r Reconsideratio n a

t 1 . H e hel dtha t

ther e remaine ddispute dmateria l issue s o f fac t tha t preclude dhi mfro mgrantin g th e relie f Gree n Ai r

sought . O n Septembe r

18 , 2007 , Gree n Ai r

move dt o preclud e Ms . Hunt' s testimon y at th e hearing . Attache dt o it s motio n wa s a n e-mai l date dAugus t

24 , 2007 , fro mMs . Hun t t o on e o f th e captains . Captai n DeSantis , stating : I sai dI hav e n o ide ai f

sh e [Ms . Daly ] i s aFA , C A o r astrippe r

for tha t matter . An dI do' t

(sic ) car e a s tha t

ha s nothin g t o d o with me . I don' t hire , trai n o r

otherwise . I neve r sai dsh e i s a[Part ] 13 5 FA . I sai da s fa r a s I amconcerne d sh e wa s o n boar dt o serv e foo dan di f ther e i s a n i n flight issu e sh e woul d assist . Wha t

di dyo u thin k

tha t sh e woul djus t

si t ther e an dwatch ?

.. . An djus t

becaus e I assum e sh e was ther e for safety , mayb e sh e was not . Tha t

was m y tak e o n it . Bu t

i n th e compan y I amn o one . No t priv y t o training , paychecks , o r otherwise . I' mno t takin g an y blam e for

anythin g t o d o wit h this . I di dno t fly th e flight, i (sic ) di dnot

assig n cre w no r

di dI pic k

th e cabi n attendant .Motion t o Preclude , Attachmen t 1 a t 1 . Gree n Ai r

contende dthat , b y he r

ow n admission , Ms . Hun t di dno t kno w Ms . Daly' s statu s durin g th e flights, an da s aresult , sh e woul d hav e n o relevan t

o r materia l testimon y t o offer at ahearin g at

whic h th e centra l issu e woul dconcer n Ms . Daly' s statu s o n th e flights. Les s tha n 2 week s after

Gree n Ai r

filedthi s motio n an dabou t 2 week s befor e th e Octobe r 1 , 2007 , schedule dhearin g date , th e FA A withdre w th e complaint . Subsequently , Gree n Ai r

move dt o dismiss , an dth e AL J dismisse dth e cas e with prejudic e unde r

1 4 C.F.R . § 13.215 .

III . Attorney' s Fe e Actio n Gree n Ai r

fileda n applicatio n unde r

th e EAJ A arguin g tha t

th e FA A was not substantiall y justifie di n filing th e complaint . Gree n Ai r contende dtha t

i t shoul db e awarde dit s attorney' s fee s an dexpenses , whic h wer e i n exces s o f $27,400 . O n Januar y 16 , 2008 , th e AL J issue dadecisio n denyin g th e applicatio n fo r attorney' s fee s an dexpenses . Th e ALJ state dtha t th e existenc e o f

question s o f

fac t concernin g Ms . Daly' s rol e aboar dth e flights an dhe r employmen t

relationshi p t o Gree n Ai r satisfie dth e EAJA' s requiremen t tha t th e agenc y actio n hav e areasonabl e basi s i n la w an dfact . H e furthe r

hel dtha t th e lega l inquir y an dfactua l disput e wer e closel y intertwine dan dsatisfie dth e EAJA' s requiremen t for anexu s betwee n th e two . Regardin g th e weight-and-balanc e computation , th e AL J sai dtha t i t wa s unclea r durin g th e investigator y an dadjudicatory phase s whethe r Ms . Daly' s weigh t

wa s included . Ther e wa s n o documentar y evidenc e listin g Ms . Dal y a s cre w for purpose s o f th e computation . Th e AL J conclude dtha t

th e factua l dispute s regardin g Ms . Daly' s role , training .an demploymen t status , combine dwit h th e factua l dispute regardin g computatio n o f weigh t an dbalance , establishe dtha t th e FA A ha dsubstantia l justificatio n for it s action . Th e AL J rejecte dGree n Air' s argumen t tha t th e dismissa l compelle dth e conclusio n tha t n o substantia l justificatio n existe dfor th e origina l complaint ; h e state dtha t th e EAJ A doe s not entitl e a n applican t

t o an awar di n an y cas e wher e th e agenc y drop s it s charges . Th e questio n remaine dwhethe r th e agenc y ha dsubstantia l justificatio n for goin g forward , an dth e AL J foun dtha t i t did . Gree n Ai r

fileda n appeal . After considerin g th e brief

s o n appeal , th e Administrato r directe dth e partie s t o file additiona l brief

s tha t addresse dcertai n critica l issues , includin g whethe r Gree n Ai r wa s aprevailin g part y i n th e underlyin g case . Gree n Aviatio n Managemen t Co. , LLC , FA A Orde r

No . 2010- 4 (Jun e 14 , 2010) . Both partie s filedaddifional briefs . IV . Discussio n Th e America n rul e i s tha t partie s mus t

bear thei r ov/ n attorney' s fee s unles s a statut e o r contrac t explicifl y authorize s fee-shifting . Hard t v . Relianc e Standar dLif e Ins . Co. , 13 0 S.Ct . 2149 , 215 6 (2010) . "Numerous " federa l stattite s authoriz e th e awar do f attorney' s fee s t o th e "prevailin g party. " Buckhanno n Boar dan dCar e Home , Inc . v . Wes t Virgini aDep t

o f Healt h an dHuma n Services , 53 2 U.S . 598 , 60 2 (2001) . Th e EAJ A i s on e suc h statut e tha t

authorize s th e shiftin g o f fee s t o th e "prevailin g party. " Se e 5 U.S.C . § 50 4 an d2 8 U.S.C . § 2412 . Th e EAJ A provide s tha t prevailin g partie s i n certai n adversaria l proceeding s ma y recove r attorney' s fee s fromth e Unite dStates . Th e relevan t portio n o f

th e EAJ A provide s a s follows : A n agenc y tha t

conduct s an adversar y adjudicatio n shal l award , t o diprevailin g part y othe r

tha n th e Unite dStates , fee s an dothe r expense s incurre db y tha t party i n connectio n wit h tha t

proceeding , unles s th e adjudicativ e officer o f th e agenc y finds tha t th e positio n o f

th e agenc y was substantiall y justifie do r tha t specia l

1 0circumstance s mak e a n awar dunjust . 5 U.S.C . § 504(a)(1 ) (emphasi s added).' ^ Establishin g "prevailin g party " statu s i s a threshol drequiremen t

for partie s seekin g fees . Hensle y v . Eckerhart , 46 1 U.S . 424 , 43 3 (1983) . Th e leadin g cas e regardin g "prevailin g party " statu s unde r fee-shiftin g statute s i s th e U.S . Suprem e Court' s decisio n i n Buckhannon . In thi s case , Buckhannon , th e operato r o f assiste dlivin g facilities , sue dth e Wes t Virgini aDepartmen t

o f Healt h an d Huma n Service s ("Wes t

Virgini aHHS") , arguin g tha t ane w stat e requiremen t

violate d th e Fai r Housin g Amendment s Ac t ("FHAA" ) an dth e American s with Disabilitie s Ac t ("ADA") . Wes t

Virgini aeliminate dth e requirement , an dth e Wes t Virgini aHH S move d t o dismis s th e cas e a s moot . Th e distric t court grante dth e motion . Buckhanno n the n sough t attorney' s fee s fromth e Wes t Virgini aHH S unde r

th e FHA A an dth e ADA . Bot h statute s permi t

acour t t o gran t attorney' s fee s t o a"prevailin g party. " Th e Buckhanno n majority hel dtha t th e ter m"prevailin g party " doe s not includ e

" apart y tha t

ha s faile dt o secur e ajudgmen t o n th e merit s o r

acourt-ordere dconsen t decree, " eve n i f

th e part y ha s "achieve dth e desire dresul t becaus e th e lawsui t

brough t abou t avolimtar y chang e i n th e defendant' s conduct. " Id . a t 600 . Th e Cour t

explaine d tha t t o b e a"prevailin g party, " ther e mus t b e ajudiciall y sanctione dmateria l alteratio n o f th e lega l relationshi p o f

th e partie s an dth e court mus t hav e awarde dsom e relie f t o th e

' ° The FAA' s regulation s implementin g the EAJ A provid e that : A prevailin g applican

t ma y receiv e a

n awar dfo r attorne y fee s an dothe r expense s incurredi

n connectio n wit

h aproceeding , o

r i n asignifican

t an d discret e substantiv e portion o

f th e proceeding , unles s th e position o f the agency ove r which th e applican

t ha s prevaile dwas substantially justified . 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.04(a) . Althoug h Section 14.04(a

) use s th e ter

m"prevailin g applicant, " rathe r tha n "prevailin g party, " th e regulatio n shouldb e interpretedto confor mto th e statut

e tha t i t implements . 1 1party seekin g fees . Id . a t 604 , 605 . Th e Court

note dtha t

"[a ] defendant' s voluntar y chang e i n conduct , althoug h perhap s accomplishin g wha t th e plaintif

f sough t t o achiev e b y th e lawsuit , lack s th e necessar y judicia l imprimatu r o n th e change. " Id . at

605 . Accordin g t o th e Court , aprevailin g part y includes : (1 ) on e wh o ha s bee n awarde dsom e enforceabl e judicia l relie f o n th e merit s o f

hi s o r he r claim ; an d(2 ) on e wh o ha s receive drelie f

throug h asettlemen t

agreemen t

enforce dthroug h aconsen t decree . I n contrast , th e Cour t stated , privat e settlement s d o no t involv e th e judicia l approva l an doversigh t

involve di n consen t

decrees . Id . at

604 , n.7 . Privat e settlements , th e Court explained , ar e ofte n unenforceabl e unles s th e orde r o f dismissa l incorporate s th e settlemen t

terms . Id . Th e Court

rejecte dth e "catalys t

theory, " unde r

whic h a n awar d o f fee s woul db e permitte dbase dupo n avoluntar y chang e i n conduc t b y th e defendan t wher e ther e i s n o judiciall y sanctione dchang e in th e parties ' lega l relationship . Id . a t 609 . Th e Court

i n Buckhanno n state dtha t give n th e clear

meanin g o f

"prevailin g party " i n th e fee-shiftin g statutes , i t wa s no t necessar y t o determin e whic h wa y polic y argument s cut . Id . Fo r

example , th e Court

decline dt o addres s polic y argument s lik e th e followin g - i f

th e catalys t

theor y wa s no t

upheld , litigatio n coul db e protracte dbecaus e partie s woul db e les s likel y t o mov e t o dismis s i f the y believe dthe y woul dhav e t o pay attorney' s fee s fo r

doin g so . Th e Court

conclude db y affirmin g th e lowe r court' s decisio n tha t

Buckhanno n was no t

aprevailin g party . Th e U.S . Court

o f Appeal s for

th e Distric t

o f Columbi aCircuit

ha s se t fort h th e followin g three-par t

test , base do n Buckhannon , for determinin g whethe r

apart y i s a "prevailin g party" :

1 2(1 ) ther e mus t b e acourt-ordere dchang e i n th e lega l relationshi p o f th e parties ; (2 ) th e judgmen t

mus t b e i n favo r

o f th e part y seekin g fees ; an d (3 ) judicia l relie f

mus t accompan y th e judicia l pronouncement . Turne r v . NTSB , 60 8 F.3 d12 , 1 5 (citin g Distric t o f Columbi av . Strauss , 59 0 F.3 d898 , 90 1 (D.C . Cir . 2010) , an dThoma s v . Nationa l Scienc e Foundation , 33 0 F.3 d486 , 49 3 (D.C . Cir . 2003)) . Th e Suprem e Cour t

i n Buckhanno n explaine dtha t "prevailin g party " i s ater mo f art , an dtha t

th e Court

interpret s consistentl y th e numerou s federal fee-shiftin g statute s tha t us e tha t terminology . Buckhannon , 53 2 U.S . at 602 , 603 , n.4 . Followin g th e Suprem e Court' s lead , th e Federa l circui t court s hav e applie dth e Buckhanno n prevailing

party criteri at o othe r

fee-shiftin g statute s tha t us e th e ter m"prevailin g party, " includin g th e stattit e at

issu e i n thi s case , th e EAJ A - 5 U.S.C . § 50 4 an d2 8 U.S.C . § 2412. " Severa l circui t

court s hav e hel dtha t

th e type s o f

relie f cite db y th e Suprem e Court i n Buckhanno n —/.e. , judgment s o n th e merit s an dconsen t decree s - ar e onl y example s o f th e type s o f

order s tha t

woul dconfe r

prevailin g part y status , assumin g tha t sufficien t judicia l imprimatu r

exists . See , e.g. . Walker v . Calume t

City , 56 5 F.3 d1031 , 103 4 (7" ' Cir . 2009) ; Citizen s fo r Bette r Forestr y v . U. S De p ' t

o f Agriculture , 56 7 F.3 d1128 , 1132(9^^01^2009) . I n th e instan t

case , th e FA A move dfor avoluntar y dismissa l o f it s complaint . Th e AL J dismisse dth e cas e wit h prejudice , a s h e wa s require dt o d o b y th e FAA' s rule s

" A cas e applyin g Buckhannon to 5 U.S.C . § 50 4 i s Turne r v . NTSB , 60 8 F.3 d1 2 (D.C . Cir . 2010) . Case s applyin g Buckhannon t o 2 8 U.S.C . § 241 2 include : Mav . Chertoff , 547 F.3 d 34 2 (2"' ' Cir . 2008) ; Biodiversit y Conservatio n Allianc e v

. Stem, 51 9 F.3 d1226 (10 * Cir . 2008) ; Carbonel l v

. Immigratio n an dNaturalizatio n Service , 42 9 F.3 d89 4 (9 * Cir . 2005) ; an

dThoma s V . National Scienc e Foundation , 33 0 F.3 d48 6 (D.C . Cir . 2003) . 1 3o f

practic e - specifically , 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.215 . Sectio n 13.21 5 provide s a s follows : § 13.21 5 Withdrawa l o f complain t

o r reques t fo r hearin g A t an y tim e befor e o r

durin g ahearing , a

n agenc y attorne y ma y withdra w acomplain t

o r apart y may withdra w areques t fo r ahearin g withou t

th e consen t o f th e administrativ e la w judge . I f a n agenc y attorne y withdraw s th e complain t

o r apart y withdraw s th e reques t fo r ahearin g an dth e answer , th e administrativ e la w judg e shal l dismis s th e proceeding s unde r thi s subpar t

with prejudice . (Emphasi s added. ) Th e ALJ' s dismissa l o f

th e FAA' s cas e wit

h prejudic e her e me t

som e o f Buckhannon' s "prevailin g party " criteria . Th e Suprem e Court i n Buckhanno n indicate d tha t obtainin g afavorabl e decisio n o n th e merit s coul dconfer "prevailin g party " status . Som e lowe r

court s hav e hel dtha t

adismissa l wit h prejudice , a s i n th e instan t case , i s a decisio n o n th e merit s becaus e i t preclude s furthe r

litigatio n - i n othe r

words , becaus e re s judicat awoul dapply . See , e.g. , Michiga n Surger y Inv. , LL C v . Arman , 62 7 F.3 d572 , 57 6 (6" ' Cir . 2010 ) ("[bjecaus e adismissa l with prejudic e preclude s furthe r litigation, " i t effectivel y reject s th e plaintiff s clai mo n th e merits).'^ Th e ALJ' s orde r o f dismissa l with prejudic e effecte damateria l alteratio n o f Gree n Air' s legal relationshi p with th e FA A becaus e i f

th e FA A trie dt o brin g th e sam e clai mi n th e fiiture , Gree n Ai r coul drel y successfull y o n are s judicat adefense . Further , enforceability i s require dfor "prevailin g party " stattrs . I n Biodiversit y Conservatio n Allianc e v . Stem , 51 9 F.3 d1226 , 123 0 (10 * Cir . 2008) , forme r

Suprem e Court

Justic e Sandr aDa y O'Conno r wrot e tha t

"unde r Buckhannon , acour t

orde r mus t b e enforceabl e t o qualif

y tha t part y for attorney' s fee s a s

' ^ I n contrast , adismissa

l withou t prejudic e i s no t

a n adjudication o

n th e merits , "a s i

t leave s the partie s i

n the sam e lega l position a s i

f n o suit ha deve r bee n filed. " Cru z v . Louisian a e x rel . Dep t

o f Publi c Safet

y an dCorrections , 52 8 F.3 d375 , 37 9 n . 1 5 (5 * Cir . 2008 ) (quotin g Hilbun V . Goldberg , 823 F.2d881 , 88 3 (5" " Cir . 1987)) . 1 4aprevailin g party. " Here , th e ALJ' s dismissa l wit h prejudic e wa s enforceabl e b y th e

court s unde r

th e doctrin e o f

re s judicata . O n th e othe r

hand . Gree n Ai r

di dno t mee t ke y criteri at o b e a"prevailin g party. " Th e Buckhanno n Cour t

explaine dtha t

t o b e a"prevailin g party, " ther e mus t b e a judiciall y sanctione dalteratio n o f th e lega l relationshi p o f

th e partie s an dth e cour t mus t hav e awarde dsom e relie f t o th e part y seekin g fees . Buckhannon , 53 2 U.S . at 604 , 60 5 (emphasi s added) . Th e Buckhanno n cour t state dtha t

judicia l imprimatu r

i s necessary . M a t 605 . Here , whil e th e agenc y attorney' s voluntar y decisio n t o discontinu e th e civi l penalt y actio n gav e Gree n Ai r wha t i t wanted , th e ALJ' s orde r dismissin g th e cas e lacke d th e necessar y judicia l imprimatur , becaus e unde r Sectio n 13.215 , th e AL J ha dentirel y n o choic e o r discretio n but

t o dismis s th e cas e wit h prejudice . See , e.g. . Highwa y Equipmen t Co . V . FECO , Ltd , 46 9 F.3 d1027 , 103 4 (Fed . Cir . 2006) , wher e th e cour t emphasize dtha t i t wa s th e judge' s exercis e o f discretio n tha t

gav e th e dismissa l wit h prejudic e th e necessar y "judicia l imprimatur' ' s o tha t th e orde r constitute da"judiciall y sanctione d chang e i n th e lega l relationshi p o f th e parties " unde r

Buckhannon . I n Turner , th e cour t

hel dtha t th e NTS B ALJ' s orde r

dismissin g th e cas e was withou t prejudice an ddi dno t

provid e administrativ e relie f Th e cour t

explaine dtha t

th e ALJ' s orde r

dismissin g th e cas e wa s simpl y an "administrativ e housekeepin g measure " no t conferrin g "prevailin g party " status , becaus e th e FA A di dno t nee dth e ALJ' s permissio n t o withdra w it s complain t unde r th e rule . Turner , 60 8 F.3 da t 16 . Althoug h Turne r

involve dadismissa l withou t prejudice . Turne r

i s instructiv e i n thi s cas e becaus e i n bot h Turne r an di n thi s case , th e FA A di dnot nee dth e ALJ' s

1 5permissio n t o withdra w th e complain t unde r th e applicabl e procedura l rules . Th e ALJ' s dismissa l o f

th e cas e agains t

Gree n Ai r

wit h prejudice di dno t

reflec t an y substantiv e judicia l imprimatu r

becaus e Sectio n 13.21 5 require dth e AL J t o dismis s th e cas e wit h prejudic e onc e th e FA A withdre w it s complaint . See , e.g. , Hutchinso n e x rel . Julie n v . Patrick , —F.3 d— , 201 1 W L 540538 , a t * 4 (1' ' Cir . 2011 ) (findin g i t necessar y t o determin e whethe r

th e orde r containe dth e sort

o f judicia l involvemen t

an daction s inheren t i n acourt-ordere dconsen t decree) ; Bel l v . Boar do f County Com'r s o f

Jefferso n County , 45 1 F.3 d1097 , 110 1 (lO" ' Cir . 2006 ) (findin g tha t becaus e plainfif

f entere dint o a privat e settlemen t

withou t an y judicia l involvement , h e wa s no t aprevailin g party) ; Lu

m V . Mercede s Bern , 24 6 FR D 544 , 54 7 (N.D . Ohi o 2007 ) (explainin g tha t th e focu s afte

r Buckhanno n wa s o n '''th e natur e an d judicia l involvemen t

i n th e outcome , rathe r

tha n o n th e practica l effect s ...." ; explainin g tha t becaus e th e judg e di dno t "determin e o r oversee " ttie dismissal , th e defendan t wa s not a"prevailin g party" ) (emphasi s added) . V . Conclusio n Gree n Ai r

wa s no t a"prevailin g party " unde r th e Suprem e Court' s ke y decisio n i n Buckhanno n becaus e th e FAA' s voluntar y chang e i n conduc t lacke dth e necessar y judicia l imprimatur . A s aresult , afe e awar di s no t appropriat e unde r

5 U.S.C . § 504(a)(1) . Fo r

th e reason s state dabove , thi s decisio n denie s Gree n Air' s appeal.' ^

J . RANDOLP H BABBIT T ADMINISTRATO R Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n

' ^ Within 3 0 day s o

f thi s determination . Gree

n ma y file a n appea l wit h a n appropriat

e UnitedState s Cour

t o f Appeals . 5 U.S.C . § 504(c)(2) ; 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.29 . See 4 9 U.S.C . § 4611 0 an d1 4 C.F.R . § § 13.235(a)-(c) . 1 6

### SERVE D JANUAR Y 16,200 8 li^J i J/.: vl b P 2 : I I 

### U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . I N THE MATTERO F THE APPLICATIO N OF GREE N AVIATIO N MANAGEIVIEN T CO. , LL C Fo r fee s an dexpense s under

th e Equal Acces s t o Justic e Ac t FAA Docke t

No . CP07EA000 3 (Equal Acces s t o Justic e Ac t Proceeding ) DM S No . FAA-2007-2698 9 ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDGE' S INITIA L DECISIO N DENYIN G APPLICATIO N FO RFEE S AN D EXPENSE S UNDE RTH E EQUA L ACCES S T O JUSTIC E AC T Thi s proceedin g arise s froman applicatio n fo r attorne y fee s an d expense s filedOctober

19 , 2007 , unde r

th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Act , 5 U.S.C . § 50 4 ("EAJA") . Th e EAJ A applicatio n wa s a n outgrowt

h o f acivi l penalty actio n filedb y th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA" ) agains t Gree n Aviatio n Managemen t Co. , LL C ("Gree n Air " or "Applicant" ) i n Docke t No . 2006EA110010 . Fo r th e reason s se t

fort h below , I den

y Gree n Air' s applicatio n fo r a n awar do f attorney' s fee s an dcost s incurre di n th e underlyin g proceeding . Factua l Histor y Th e underlyin g proceedin g aros e from acharte r fligh t operate db y Gree n Air . I

t departe dWhite Plains , Ne w Yor k o n December

30 , 2005 , fle

w t o th e Bahamas , an dreturne do n Januar y 2 , 2006 . Durin g tw o flight legs .

### th e aircraf t carrie dnin e passengers . Als o aboar dwer e tw o pilots , Captain s DeSanti s an dDaly , an dEri n Daly , Captai n Daly' s daughter . Th e aircraf t operate dfo

r th e trip , aChallenge r

CL-600 , wa s certificate dt o transpor t no t mor e than nin e passengers . Cre w accommodation s include dtw o pilo t seat s an dajumpseat . Gree n Air' s quote fo

r th e charte r

flight, date dDec . 15 , 2005 , include d alin e itemfo

r a n "attendant " wit

h apric e o f

$1,600 . Th e total amoim

t quoted , includin g th e cos t

o f a n attendant , wa s accepte db y th e client . Th e tri p lo g prepare db

y (jiee n Air' s customer

servic e representativ e liste dEri n Dal y a s "FA. " Whe n Captai n Dal y transmitte da n "Electroni c Advanc e Passenge r Informatio n System " ("eAPIS" ) repor t t o th e U.S . Custom s an d Borde r Patro l o n th e da y prio r t o th e flight , Eri n Dal y wa s liste da s "crew. " Finally , when th e aircraf

t arrive di n th e Bahamas , th e custom s inspecto r reporte dnin e passenger s an dthre e crewmember s wer e o n board . Underlyin g Procedura l Histor y Th e FA A filedaction s befor

e th e National Transportatio n Safet y Board("NTSB" ) seekin g suspensio n o f th e pilo t certificate s o f

Captain s DeSanti s an dDaly ' i

n additio n t o th e civi l penalt y actio n agains t

Gree n Air . Th e paralle l charge s reste do n alternativ e theories , either that Eri n Dal y wa s a n improperl y traine dflight attendan t occupyin g th e aircraf

t jumpsea t o r tha t sh e wa s a n un-manifeste dtent

h passenge r

o n a n aircraf t certificate dfo

r only nin e passengers . Additionally , th e FA A asserte dthat Eri n Daly' s weigh t wa s no t include di n th e weight-and-balanc e computatio n fo r th e flight. Th e FAA' s civi l penalt

y complain t

sough t a$33,00 0 penalty . Gree n Ai r responde dwit

h awritte n deman dfo

r ahearing . O n Ma y 31 , 2007 , th e NTS B proceedin g agains t Captain s DeSanti s an dDaly wa s settled.' ^ I t

wa s agree dthat

th e charge s woul db e droppe dand n o EAJA applicatio n woul db e mad e o n behal f o f th e tw o pilots . Accordingly , th e Administrato r withdre w th e actio n an dth e NTS B terminate dth e proceeding . Durin g th e settlement discussion s concernin g th e pilots , i t wa s agree dthat

th e civi l penalt

y cas e agains t

Gree n Air

woul db e droppe dimmediatel y upo n submissio n of a n affidavit concernin g Eri n

' NTS B Docke t

Nos . SE- l 1792 7 an d19278 . ^ Th e sEun e counse l represente dCaptain s DeSanti s an dDal y an dGree n Air .

### Daly' s employmen t status. ^ Similarly , Gree n Air agree dno t

t o pursu e a

n EAJ A application . However , th e envisione dsettlemen t o f th e civi l penalt

y cas e di dno t hold . O n Jun e 1 , 2007 , Gree n Air move dt o dismis s and , o n Jun e 6 , Green Ai r wrot e t o FA A counse l requestin g th e proceedin g b e droppe dsinc e i t aros e fromth e same fact s an dcircumstance s a s th e settle dcharge s agains t th e tw o pilots . O n Jun e 16 , th e FA A indicate dthat

i t intende dt o continu e th e civi l penalt

y cas e agains t

Green Ai r

an drepeate dit s original charge s fromth e Complaint . On Jun e 28,2007, 1 denie dGree n Air' s motio n fo r sunmiar y disposition , rulin g tha

t th e unresolve dfactua

l issu e o f Eri n Daly' s employmen t

statu s require dahearin g to resolve . Th e same orde r schedule d th e hearin g fo

r October 16 , 2007 . Thereafter , th e partie s exchange d interrogatorie s an dpursue ddiscovery . O n Augus t

3 , 2007 , Gree n Ai r

requeste dreconsideratio n o f m y dispositio n o f

it s summar

y judgmen t

motion . Attache dt o Gree n Air' s motio n wer e several exhibits , one o f whic h wa s acop y o f

a n IR S for m109 9 listin g "nonemployee " compensatio n fo r Eri n Dal y i n th e amoun t

o f $2,100.' * Th e FAA repl y t o th e reconsideratio n reques t pointe dou t

that th e issu e o f Eri n Daly' s employmen t

statu s remaine doutstanding , sinc e compensatio n wa s liste dunder

th e "nonemployee " category . Th e underlyin g proceedin g wa s finally resolve dwhe n th e FA A withdre w it s Complain t

o n October

1 , 2007 . Nothin g mth e recordindicate s th e withdrawal too k

plac e pursuant

t o asettlement

agreement . Thereafter , Gree n Ai r filed atimel y applicatio n fo r awar do f fee s unde r

EAJA . Th e FA A filed arespons e opposin g th e applicatio n in it s entirety .

^ Specifically th e affidavit wa s t o includ e first, tha

t Erin Daly wa s a

n employe e o f

Gree n Air , secondly , tha

t Gree n Air presentl y ha dn o records , other Aan pa y stubs , evidencin g he r

employment , andfinally, tha t n o IR S o r state recorcG presentl y existe dt o substantiate her employment . * Line 7 o f

200 5 For m1099 , Exhibi t

1 0 o f Respondent' s Motio n fo

r Reconsideration , filedAugus t 3 , 2007 . Th e recorddoe s no t

sho w whethe r

th e 109 9 existe dtw o month s earlier whe n counse l fo

r Gree n Ai r represente dtha

t n o federa l o r state tax form s existe da s t o Erin Daly' s employmen t wit h Gree n Air . I f

i t ha dexisted , i

t presumabl y woul dhav e deepene dth e issu e o f employment

statu s sinc e i

t list s compensatio n a s "nonemployee. " I

n th e circumstances , I make n o rulin g on th e validit y o f th e 1099 , a s i

t i s immateria

l b m y view t o th e outcom e o f

th e pendin g application .

### Standards ;

Th e EAJ A require s a

n agenc y conductin g a

n adversar y adjudicatio n t o awardfee s an dother

expense s t o aprevailin g part y (other tha n th e Unite d States ) unles s th e positio n o f th e agenc y wa s substantiall y justifie do r special circumstance s make a

n awar dunjust . 5 U.S.C . § 504(a)(1) . Th e FAA' s regulation s implementin g th e statute essentiall y mirro r it s languag e {se

e 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.04) . Th e burde n o f proo f to sho w that

a n awar dshoul dno t

b e mad e rest s wit

h th e agency . 1 4 C.F.R . § • 14.04(a) . Analysis ; Althoug h th e underlyin g proceeding s di dno t conclud e with atrial

typ e hearing , th e entiret

y o f th e underlyin g proceeding s constitute da n "adversary adjudication " withi n th e meanin g o f th e EAJA an

dth e regulation s implementin g tha t statute . Th e FAA ha dasserte dthat i t wa s entitle dt o asses s acivi l penalt y fo r violation s o f

th e Federa

l Aviatio n Regulation s ("FAR") , Green Air dispute dth e FAA' s charge s an di n th e normal cours e o f

events , th e issue s i n th e cas e woul dhav e bee n resolve d throug h atrial-typ e hearin g under th e adjudicativ e provision s o f th e Administrativ e Procedure Act . Th e FA A eventuall y withdre w it s charge s withou t aquid-pro-qu o embodie di n th e settlemen t agreement . Agenc y rule s implementin g EAJA contemplate that a"voluntary dismissal " ma y serv e a s abasi s for a n EAJ A claim . 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.20(c)(5) . Th e FAA doe s no t contes t tha t it s withdrawal o f

th e charg e establishe dthat Gree n Ai r

wa s a "prevailin g party. " Thus , th e critical questio n i s whether th e FAA' s positio n wa s "substantiall y justified. " A n actio n i s substantiall y justifie dwhe n i t ha s areasonabl e basi s i n la w an dfact . Pierc e v . Underwood , 48 7 U.S . 552 , 56 5 (1988) ; 1 4 CF R§ 14.04(a) . Th e charge s mus t b e justifie dt o th e degre e tha t coul dsatisf

y a reasonabl e person . Pierc e v . Underwood , ^XS^S . Th e agenc y mus t show , first, areasonabl e basi s i

n trut h fo r th e fact s alleged , second , areasonabl e basi s mla w fo

r th e lega l theor y propounde dand , finally, areasonabl e connectio n betwee n th e fact s andit s legal theory . Valle y Ai r Services , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 9502 7 (December

19 , 1995 ) a

t 6 , reconsideratio n denied , FA A Orde r

No . 96-1 5 (Ma

y 13,1996) ; Smit

h v . Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Board , 99 2 F.2 d849 , 85 2 (8t h Ch" . 1993) .

### EAJ A als o provide s that adeterminatio n of

"substantial justification " mus t b e mad e "o n th e basi s o f

th e adminisfrativ e record , a s awhole , whic h i s mad e i n th e adversar

y adjudicatio n ... " 5 U.S.C . § 504(a)(1) . "Substantia l justification " connote s a n active, , searchin g inquir

y int o th e qualit y o f evidenc e advance dan

dth e overal l reasonablenes s o f th e agency' s position . Unite dBrotherhoo do f Carpenter s an dJoiner s v . NLRB , 89 1 F.2 d 1160 , 116 3 (5t

h Cir . 1990) . Th e Complain t

charge dGree n Ai r

wit h thre e violations . First , Gree n Ai r wa s charge dwit

h violatin g it s air

carrier operatin g certificat

e (FA R§ 119.5(1) , 1 4 C.F.R . § 119.5) , secon di t wa s charge dwit

h violatin g th e requiremen t

that n o perso n ma

y serv e a s acrewmember

withou t trainin g adequat e andappropriate t o th e rol e (FAR§ 135.343 , 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.343) , and , finally, i t

wa s charge dwit

h operatin g th e aircraf

t in acareles s an d reckles s manne r

s o a s t o endanger

th e lif e an dpropert

y o f another (FA R§ 91.13(a) , 1 4 C.F.R . § 91.13) . Specifically , th e proceedin g turne do n th e questio n o f

Eri n Daly' s rol e aboardth e aircraf t an dwhether

her weigh t wa s include di n th e weight-and-balanc e computation . Eri n Daly' s Rol e I t wa s clea r tha t Gree n Aur' s clien t

contracte dfo

r andpai dfo

r an "attendant. " I t

wa s no t clea r whether the y were gettin g someon e wh o woul d simpl y serv e drink s an datten dt o th e passenger' s comfor t o r whethe r the y woul dhav e onboar

daqualifie dflight

attendan t traine din safet

y procedures . Gree n Air' s quotatio n refer s to he r a s a n "attendant; " th e tri p lo g refer s t o her a s an "FA; " an dth e eAPI S filing refer s t o her a s "crew. " Clearly , i t

wa s

. anticipate dtha

t Eri n Dal y wa s actin g in some capacit y a s arepresentativ e o f Gree n Air . A

t th e time o f

bookin g th e trip , Gree n Air' s customer servic e representativ e ("CSR") , wh o provide dth e quotatio n an dcreate dth e tri p log , informe dCaptai n Daly tha t i f Eri n Dal y wa s goin g o n th e trip , the n sh e woul db e expecte dt o perfor msafety-relate ddutie s an dmus t b e adequatel y traine di n orde r

t o d o so . Numerou s FA

A regulation s requir e tha

t a"fligh t attendant " mus t

b e trained , knowledgeable , an dcompeten t in safet y procedure s concernin g th e passenger s an dth e aircraft . (Se e 1 4 CF R§ § 135.295 , 135.117 , 135.122 ,

### 135.128. ) (jtee n Air wa s unabl e t o provid e record s o f flight attendan t trainin g t o th e FAA durin g th e investigation . Additionally , Gree n Air' s answe r t o th e FAA' s Complaint

admitte dtha

t i t di dno t establis h an d maintai n a

n approve dflight

attendan t trainin g program . However , becaus e th e CL-60 0 wa s certificate dfo r fewe r than ninetee n passengers . Gree n Ai r wa s no t require dt o provid e aqualifie dflight attendant . Se e 1 4 C.F.R . § 135.107 . Thus , i f

Eri n Dal y serve donl y a s anon-require d"attendant " or "cabi n aide, " ther e wa s n o requiremen t fo r her t o hav e hadan

y kin do f safet y trainin g a t all . Becaus e th e aircraf

t wa s certificate dfo

r les s tha n ninetee n passengers , th e issu e o f

require dflight

attendant trainin g becam e moot . Gree n Ai r asserte dthi s poin t

in it s motio n t o dismis s filedo n Jun e 1 , 2007 . (Nevertheless , Captai n Daly , i n later affidavits , atteste dthat

h e ha dprovide d Eri n Dal y wit

h basi c familiarizatio n with safet y procedures. ) Th e FAA argue dtha

t becaus e Gree n Air

provide da

n attendan t onboard , i t

wa s require dt o establis h an dconduc t aflight attendan t trainin g program . Sinc e Eri n Daly di dno t receiv e an

y training , th e FA

A argue dthat sh e wa s no t

aflight attendant , an dthus , mus t

hav e bee n a

n un-manifeste d tenth passenger . Th e FAA' s argumen t faile dto allo w fo

r th e possibility o f

a middl e ground , tha

t o f anon-require dattendant , Le^ , acabi n aid e or

cabi n attendant . However , whe n Green Air asserte dEr

mDal y require dn o trainin g becaus e sh e serve donl y a s anon-require dattendant , th e FAA' s inquir y turne dt o th e questio n o f

her employmen t

status . Evidenc e o f

employmen t statu s wa s th e key issu e discusse di n th e settlemen t negotiation s tha t resolve dth e action s agains t th e pilots . Althoug h thi s issu e wa s discusse d an dagreed-upo n i n th e settlemen t o f Jun e I , 2007 , Gree n Air

wa s unabl e t o

. produc e any record s o f

Eri n Daly' s employmen t

unti l i t provide daFor

m 109 9 Ustin g $2,10 0 pai dto her

a s "nonemployee " compensatio n i n Augus t o f 2007 . Th e For

m109 9 an dthre e hand-writte n paymen t slips , at least , provide dsome evidenc e t o sugges t tha t sh e wa s no t

simpl y a n un-manifeste d tent h passenger . Withou t

evidenc e o f

some employment

relationship , ther e wa s nothin g o f

recor dt o preclud e th e possibilit y that an additional passenger , jus t

b y agreein g t o serv e drink s andsit i n th e jump-seat , coul d do n th e disguis e o f

anon-require dattendan t

andeasil y circumven t

th e nine

passenge r limitatio n applicabl e to th e CL-600 .

### Th e existenc e o f thes e fac t question s concernin g Eri n Daly' s rol e aboar dth e flights an dher

employment

relationshi p t o Gree n Air

satisfie s th e EAJA' s requiremen t

tha t th e agenc y actio n hav e areasonabl e basi s i n la w an dfact . Eve n thoug h Gree n Ai r wa s no t require dt o provid e aqualifie d flight attendant , i f

Ms . Dal y ha

dacte da s aflight

attendant , the n sh e woul d hav e bee n require dt o receiv e adequate training . I f sh e serve da s anon require dattendant , the n it

woul db e reasonabl e t o expec t t o se e evidenc e o f a n employmen t

relationship . I n order

t o suppor t Green Air' s assertio n tha

t Eri n Dal y wa s no t

a n un-manifeste dtent

h passenger , it

wa s reasonabl e fo

r th e FA A t o as k

fo r proo f o f a n employmen t

relationship . Gree n Ai r

wa s unable , unti l eigh t

month s afte

r th e Complain t

wa s filed, t o provid e an

y for m o f evidenc e o f

employment , albei t

"nonemployee " employment . Gree n Air' s variou s reference s t o Eri n Dal y a s "crew, " "attendant, " and"flight attendant " poin t

t o Green Air' s ow n interna l confiisio n a s t o her

rol e andit s complianc e wit

h trainin g requirements . Th e lega l inquir y an dfactua

l disput e are closel y intertwine dan dsatisf y th e EAJA' s requiremen t fo r a nexu s betwee n th e two . Weigh t an dBalanc e Computatio n Als o unclea

r durin g th e investigator

y phas e an dadjudicator

y phas e wa s whethe r

Eri n Daly' s weigh t

wa s include din th e weight-and-balanc e computation . Althoug h Captai n Daly' s affidavit denie dit , th e FA A investigato r

reporte dthat

Captai n Dal y di dno t

includ e he r

weigh t i n th e computation . Copie s of

th e weigh t

an dbdEinc e sheet s i n th e recor dlis t th e name s o f th e tw o pilot s andinclud e dat afo r th e nin e passengers . Green Ai r asserte din variou s filings tha t Eri n Daly' s weigh t

wa s include di n th e computatio n under

th e categor

y o f "crew. " Whil e thi s ma

y in fac t b e th e

. case , ther e i s n o documentar y evidenc e that

list s Eri n Dal y a s cre w fo r purpose s o f

th e computation . Conclusion ; Th e factua

l dispute s a s t o Eri n Daly' s role , training , an demploymen t status , combine dwit

h th e factua

l disput e a s t o computatio n o f weigh t an d balanc e establis h tha

t th e FAA ha dsubstantial justificatio n fo r it s action . I t i s no t clea r wh y th e FAA voluntaril y droppe dth e charges . Gree n Ai r argue s that th e dismissal compel s th e conclusio n that n o substantial justificatio n existe dfo r th e origina

l complaint . Th e EAJ A doe s not , however , entitl e a n

### applican t t o a n awar din an y cas e wher e th e agenc y drop s it s charges . Th e questio n remain s whether

th e agenc y ha dsubstantia l justificatio n fo

r goin g forward . I n thi s case , I findthat i t did . In consideratio n o f

th e foregoing , I findan ddetermin e that , subjec t t o appeal t o th e Administrato r a s provide din sectio n 14.2 8 o f th e regulation s o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n implementin g th e Equal Acces s t o Justic e Ac t

o f 1980 , a s amended , 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.28 , th e applicatio n of Gree n Aviatio n Managemen t

Co . mus t be , an di t herebj ^ is , DENIED . / Isaa c D . Benki n Administrativ e Law Judg e [Note—Thi s decisio n ma

y b e appeale dt o th e Administrato r withi n 3 0 day s afte r i t i s issued . Th e Notic e o f

Appeal andAppeal Brie f

mus t b e sen t t o th e Federal Aviatio n Administration , 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Washington , D.C . 20591 , Attn : Appellat e Docke t Clerk . A cop y o f

the notic e andbrie f

shoul dals o b e serve do n counse l fo r th e FAA. ]