To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13 PM Page: 02/15 

### EJCllENBERCER &_ASSOCIATES

Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk AGC-430, Wilber Wtight Building Suite 2Wl000

To the HearingDocket Clerk, November 

### J7, 2015

**R~;':** 

### Applicant's Reply FDJV!S No. 2015-3309 (EAJA)
Please find the enclosed Reply to the Administrator's Response to Application for Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act. All parties have been served via U.S. Mail and facsimile. Ifyou have any questions ln processing this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at the number below-.

Enclosures CC: Kate Barber, Esq. Lauren Hoyson, Esq. Judge J.E, Sullivan

60;37 

### Frantz Road, Suite 107 i 

### Dublin, Ohio43017

## i T/ 614-798-16001. 

### F/ 614-798-1600 

### iww·w.ehlawyers.comTo: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13PM Page: 03/15



### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. SpiritAvionics, LTD., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### FDMS No. 2015-3309 (EAJA) DocketNo. FAA-2014-0119 Applicant, 

### v. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator Federal AviationAdminish·ation, Respondent. 

### Judge J.E. 

### Sullivan

APPLICANT'S REPLY TOANSWEROF RESPONDENT Applicant, by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Replyto theAdministrator's Response to Application for Award ofAttorney'sFees and Expenses under The Equal Access to JusticeAct. 

### INTRODUCTION In its Response to Application for Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (the "Response"), theAdministrator raises two arguments in defense of the Application. Specifically, the Administrator first states that attmney's fees are not warranted because the agency was substantially justified in pursuing its enforcement action against Applicant. Second, the Administrator contends that Applicant is not entitled to the amount of attomeys fees sought in its motion. Applicant disagrees with the Administrators position in all respects. TheAgency was notjustified in pursuing its claim against Applicant and and as such, itApplicant is entitled to itsAttorney'sfees undertheEqual Access toJustice Act.To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13PM Page: 04/15



### ARGUMENT 

### A. TheAgencywas notSubstantiallyJustified inpursuingitsActionAgainstApplicant. The Administrator's assertion that itwas substantiallyjustifiedisbased 011 a collection of arguments it has constructed after the fact to attempt to justify the reasonableness of its prosecution ofthis matter. Throughout the entire pendency ofthis matter, the Administrator had no credible evidence other than an invoice from Applicant to its sub-contractor to show that Applioant was liablef01 lh" o.llegeu uffeuse. Ilis ufcritical imponantto consider t11at tl1e Agency conducted no meaningful discovery other than an initial request for documents after it had filed its complaint. The Administrator asserts that it was substantiallyjustified in bringing the action against Applicant because it was reasonable to assert that a "sale" occurred in violation of 14 C.F.R. § 21.9 since the Applicant gave parts to Lane in exchange for $7,439.16. TI1e Administrator attempts to justify that it acted reasonably in light ofthe law and facts before it, however the justifications asserted me either not reasonable or were never raised during the ligation ofthis action. The first point raised in support of this position was that Applicant argued during the infonnal process that it was not a "sale" becanse the invoice was not an accnrate representation, however Applicant provided no evidence to the contrary until it presented a "self-serving, unaffumed statement" that the subject transaction was not a sale. To that end, the Administrator

**assert~** that it was reasonabletobelievethat a business would keep accurate documentation ofits own transactions. From the onset of this matter, the Agency completely ignored the entire description contained ontheinvoice andthe fact that invoices were issued to two parties, Theinvoice stated:


### 2To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13 PM Page: 05/15

"Lane Aviation portion ofpurchase and assembly ofheadliner install kits. Kits supplied to be used for the 3rd for FAA Aircraft through the 18th Aircraft." As stated in its Motion, a second invoice was also issued Tritex Corp. with the identical language, and the Agency had this document in its possession. In light ofthe context ofthe relationship between Applicant, Lane Aviation, and Tritex Corp., it would be unreasonable to think that the documents (the invoice to Tritex and Lane), when viewed together, would represent anything other the exact arrangement described by Applicant, a loss sharing measme. The Agency had every opportunity to depose a party from Lane Aviation, Spirit, or Tritex to confirm that this was accurate; however it neglectedto do so. The second point raised in support of its position that it was substantiallyjustified to pursue this action was that the Applicant's argmnent that the FAA retained title under the terms of the contract was inapplicable because the parts were "manufactUTed" and not "acquired." Further, the Administrator asserts that nothing in the contract gave Applicant the right to make parts and give them to Lane for a sum ofmoney and thus the manufactured parts were outside the contactbetweenApplicant andthe FAA. This argument has no merit. Had the Administrator maintained this position all along, it certainly would have raised it in its Response to Applicant's Motion for Decision. Further, the Administratorinfers that Applicant had no authority to manufacture parts inthe first place. This is not the case as Applicant is an appropriately rated certificate holder with a quality control system and is thus permitted to produce replacement and modification articles consumed in the repair or alteration ofa product or article in accordancewith 14 C.F.R. § 43. The Administrator refers to Exhibit A, which is a selection offom pages from a more than thirty-five page contract. Exhibit A, however, does not specifically state that manufactured


### 3To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13 PM Page: 06/15

parts are not the property ofthe FAA. Here, the Administrator appears to be arguing that since the wordmanufactureis not contained in the contract, anyparts that were manufactured werenot used inthe FAA aircraft that were the subject ofthe contract, and therefore, theymust have been sold. This argwnent is illogical when considered in the context of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Thus, the FAA's position on this point is not reasonable; as itis obvious the FAA would not draft a contract that would limit theprivileges under its Repair Station Certificate. As stated above, § 43 gives the certificate holder the ability toproduce replacement o:r modification articles. Theparts in question arereplacement and/or modification articles. One does not typically just purchase parts consumed in the modification or alteration of aircraft at yourlocal aircraft supplystore. There are quality processes putinplace bythe FAR's. Parts such as brackets and lanyards must typically be produced by repair station certificate holders from engineering drawings, which are actually reviewed by a Designated Engineering Representative ("DER'') to ensure that they are appropriate for the application intended. In fact, FAA forms are used to facilitate the DER approval process. In this particular case, The DER, signed off on the work performed. Moreover, Lane Aviation is specifically mentioned in the attached FAA Fotm 337 Major Repair and Alteration form as it relates to the installation ofthe headliners on the subject aircraft. 1 Page 2 ofExhibit A clearly states that the parts in question were approved by Kenneth W. Thompson, DERT-510394-CE. At all relevant times, the Agency had this specific form in its possession. Thus, there is no doubt that the parts in question were consumed in the course of the modifications made to the FAA aircraft. Therefore, the Administrator's position is notreasonable as thereisno doubt theparts were titled to the FAA. Third, the Administrator asserts that it was substantiallyjustified in pursuing this action because Applicant did not assert that the parts belonged to the FAA (meaning that they had title 1 See Applicant'sExhibit A 4To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13 PM Page: 07/15



### to tl1e parts) because they were purchased with FAA funds until after fue hearingon the Motion. Furilier, ilie Administrator contends that this was the first time any credible evidence was presented to support its position. TI1is is patently false. Evidence was supported by way of a sworn declaration and was attached to the Motion. The Administrator is distorting the plain language of the contract with the FAA. Further, the Administrator is advancing another argument fuat is illogical, unreasonable, and not supported by its own Exhibit D. The Administrator is asserting that Applicant's own records show that it did not pay for the work done to the brackets until after the "sale" to Lane. Exhibit D is an engineering change for one of the parts in question. As Applicant has stated on multiple occasions, ithad miscalculated the cost ofthe headliner installation kits. Obviously, this conversation regarding sharing the loss related to the miscalculation would have occurredbetween Lane and Tritex prior to makingilic required engineering changes and manufacturingthe parts in question. Therefore, this argument must fail. TI1e Administrator then attempts to advance a purely hypothetical theory that is not supported by any evidence and was never raised in its Response to Applicant's Motion. Specifically, the Administrator asserts that a sale occurred based on the invoice regardless of whether the FAA 

### retained title to the parts - specifically that fue invoice "could have" been a written confirmation of sale under UCC 2-207. UCC 2-207 

### was never raised in its Response. Further, the Administrator stated in its response that the UCC definition of "sale" should not governthe definitioninPart 21 2

. 

### To say that the invoice "could have" served as a cDntractbetween Lane and Applicant is also meritless. Had fue Ad.minb'irator considered tl1is arglllnent during the pendency of tl1e action, it certainly would have raised it in its Response to Applicants Motion for Decision, not

2 See FAAResponse to Applicant's Motion for SummaryJudgment, Page 4. 

### 5To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Data: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13PM Page: 08/15

after it is trying tojustifythe action itself Therefore, to now argue that it was their position that theU.C.C. controlsis inconsistent and unreasonable. The Administrator appears to have §21.9 tumwl-vision as it is focusing on selected language within the regulation while completely ignoring the remainder ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations, the contract with the Applicant's customer (the FAA), and therelationship between Applicant and its subcontractor, in an effort topenalizeApplicant without any credible evidence. The Administrator also ignores the fact that the Joss was split three ways between Applicant, Lane Aviation, and Tritex Corp. In fact, it conveniently ignores the existence ofthe matching invoice issued to Tritex Corp. for its share oftheloss. The fact that Applicant waited until its motion to assert its theories of defense has absolutely no bearing on whether the Administrator was substantiallyjustified in bringing this matter. This is an adversarial proceeding and the Applicant had no obligation to inform the Administrator onits theory ofdefense, partictdarly in light ofthe fact that the Administrator had one piece of evidence, the invoice it purports to be the smoking gun of an alleged illegal parts manufactnring empire. Further, given the procedure ofthese proceedings, raisingthis issue in its Motion would be the most logical point to do so as it was made prior to the dispositive motion deadline. Obviously, Applicant's counsel was not going to call the Administrator's counsel to informher ofitstheoryofdefense prior to filing its Motion. Given the stakes of this litigation and the fact that the Administrator initially contemplated seeking revocation ofApplicant's Repair Station Certificate for a violation that it had no evidence to support, the Applicant treated this matter as it would any other lawsuit against its business. To that end, it is also important to note that the Administrator did not conduct any meaningful discovery absent a documentrequest at the initiation ofthe proceeding.


### 6To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13 PM Page: 09/15


### Though a recurring theme throughout the Administrator's response was the timing ofraisingthis defense, it certainlyhad the opportunity to refute the defense on the issue ofwhat constitutes a "sale" in its Responseto Applicant's Motion. The Administrator claims it repeatedly asked for "Spirit Documentation or other proofto showthat the transaction with Lane was something other than a sale as indicated onthe invoice" and supports this claim with Exhibit C, the affidavit ofFederalAviation AdministrationAttomey Kate Barber. In Ms. Barber's Affidavit, she declared under the pains and penalty ofperjury that Applicant argued that a "sale" had not occurred through the discussions. 3 

### The Administrator claims that Applicant argued for the first time that a sale did not occur because under the Applicant's contract with the FAA, the FAA retained all title to the parts and materials acquired to complete the work set forth in the contract, and a sale requires passing oftitle and that the FAAwasreasonable to defend this motion. What is even more egregious is the fact tl1at the plain language of §21.9 specifically states that a Part43 Repair station mayfabricate replacement or modification articles for use in consumption ofan alteration. TheAdministrator attempts to assert thattheparts in question were not consumed in the course ofthe alterations contemplated under theFAA contract, but offers no evidence in support ofthis contention. This is particularly concemingbecause the customer was the FAA itself, and the Agency had open and unfettered access to all documentation involving the alterations. After all, they were FAA aircraft. Thus it is clear that the FAA conducted no meaningful research into the actual viability ofthe alleged offense. Therefore, there is no way that it cannow assert it was substantial!yjustified inbringingtlus action. In

### its response, the Administrator asserts that the Agencyis substantiallyjustified so long as ithad (1) 

### a reasonable basis in truthfor the facts alleged; (2) a reasonable basis in law for the 3 BarberMdvt_ 

### 1! 8. 

### 7To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13 PM Page: 10/15


### theoty propounded; and (3) a reasonable c01mection between the facts alleged and the legal ' 

### theory advanced4 

### The government bears the burden of proving that its position meets the substantiallyjustified standard.5 

### To make this assessment, the court must review the recordinits

. 6 

### entirety. Based on a review ofthe record, the Administrator had no reasonable basis in truth for the facts alleged, no reasonable basis in law for the theory propounded and no reasonable connectionbetweenthe facts alleged and the legal theoryit advanced. In

### fact, the Agency's legal theory can be summarized as follows: "There was an invoice that contained the term "purchase", and therefore it must have been a sale and a violation of§ 21.9." There was simply no credible evidence advanced to support its assertion that a violation occurred. Therefore, the Agency was not substantiallyjustified in 

### pursuing this action and attomey's fees and expenses oflitigation shouldbe awarded accordingly. 

### B. Applicant isEntitledto theAmountof Fees Sought. The Administrator argues that fees should be reduced by $2,309.70 because Applicant carmot be awarded attorney's fees for work performed prior to the time the FAA filed its complaint on May 12, 2014. The Administrator argues that the EAJA defines the term "adversary adjudication" as adjudication under 5 USC 554 in which the position ofthe United States is represented by counsel or otherwise. At all relevant times, the FAA's interest was represented by its 

### attomey, Kate Barber. Applicant also had counsel present during the informal conference. TheAdministrator also argues that the fees charged by Applicant's counsel should not be awarded because they are in excess of the statutory rate of $125 per hour and there was no 4 Administrator's Response, page 4, citing United States v. HallmarkConst. Co., 200 F.3d 1076(7'6 Cir. 2000). 5 United Statesv. HallmarkConstruction, 200 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2000) 6 Id. at 1081. 

### 8To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Data: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13 PM Page: 11/15



### evidence ofa special factor such as qualified attorhcys or agents for the proceedings involved. Further, the Administrator contends that an exceptibnbased solely on expertise that the attomey acquired through a practice in a specific area of administrative law does not justify a higher award. The cases cited by the Administrator

**rela~e** 

### to tax, insurance, Texas property, social ' 

### security and election law. The Applicant would

**agr~e** 

### that those areas oflaw are notparticularly I 

### rare, 

### as they relate to areas oflaw commonly encoimtered bymost people. Aviation law, to the contrary, is not something one typically encounters in everyday life as compared to a tax or even il 

### a social security issue. Further, Applicant's courjsel is one of the few practitioners in this I 

### particular area oflaw in Columbus, Ohio. In

### fact,



### A~plicant's cmmsel's law finn, to its cotmsel's I 

### knowledge ofpracticing in 

### this area for over 30 yews, consists oftwo ofthe three aviation law I 

### attorneys in Columbus thatpractice in this area



### wit~ any regularity7• 

### Therefore, a special factor exists.

·, CONCLUSION
I 

### The Administrator was not substantially jJstified in its position as such; Applicant is i 

### entitled to its attorney's fees and expenses involvea in 

### the ligation ofthis matter. Applicant is also entitledtoits fees at anincreased rate because

# J special factor exists.

[SIGNATURE ON FOLLOWINGPAGE] '

I 7 SeeAffidavit ofAttorney JerryEichenbergerAttached as Ex1p.ibitD. 9To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13 PM Page: 12/15
Respectfully submitted,

erryA.Eichenberger Eichenberger & Associates, Co. LPA 6037 FrantzRoad, Suite 107 Dublin, Ohio 43017 Phone: 614-798-1600 Facsimile: 614-798-1620 Counsel forApplicant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing was served upon the following parties by facsimile and U.S. Mailthis 17'1dayofNovember, 2015. FAAHearingDocket 800 IndependenceAve, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: HearingDocket Clerk AGC-430, WilberWrightBuilding Suite2Wl000 

### Fax: 202-267-1293 TheHonorableJ.E. Sullivan U.S. AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200NewJersey Ave, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 Fax: 202-366-7536 Kate Barber LaurenBoyson FederalAviation Administration Office ofRegional Counsel, AGL-7B 2300EastDevonAvenue Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 Fax: 847-294-7498

10To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13 PM Page: 13/15 

## EXHIBIT 1\-cc.J-\, c\ <r :.:, 

# A

**("~** ''

**FormNtp~ El~**  1"hlei-J!)Q

**NY!fi~r** OMB "No.

**212/J.~il** MAJOR REPAfRAND ALTERATION :!nB120l1 us Ocparlm.onl

**f'O~FM** M y **~Tflll'l~i:!oll** (Airframe,. Powerp!ant, Propeller, orAppliance) F•d.r.al,.t:.,.llolf""' Adttlll'll*'inil:l"n INSTRUCTIONS: Prtnt Or type au enl!i&:s. See:Title 14 CFR §-43,9, Part -l3 Append!x B, ar.d AC

**43.S~1** (qr sub:soquent f'.Oyision thereoQ for tnstruo;tiCns and <lispos1tlon o(-1fl.ls torm, This report Is requlred by law (<19 u"-s,c. §44701), Failure to report can

**re~U\t** ma dvH penalty fnr each such YiO!a:Uon-. {49 u.s.y. .§46Jo1(o")J Nalionarrty and Kag!stration Mark Serial No. N79 FF-14 1. Aircraft

**Ma~•** Mo<iel \]Series HawkerBeechcraft 300 N/A Ne:rne (A$· .Wovm on regfstrotlon cerNficate) Address fAs sbO'..vn on reglsfraiiotl ce,fificflte)

**Md~~~** 8500 S **M~CABI!:-:l!** IR B!

**~D** 2. owner Federal

**Aviatio~** Adrninlstration Ci<y Ql!)LAHOM/> QtiX suw

**Q~** !Aviation System Standards AJW3400

**~. 7316~-6~01**  **C~'fl~"'f** United

**Stat~§:** 3, F=orFAA UU OnlY

. 4, Typa-

**6~** unrt fduntlflcatl-on Repair Alteration una Make Model Seriaf No.



### 0 

## 0 AIRFRAME (As desatbodIn rt-em 1 above) 

### 0 

## 0 PO\NERPLANT 

## ---- .., ..

### --..

**·~** 

### 0 

## 0 PROPELLER Typa 

### 0 

## 0 APPUANCE Mmn/.aaute:r 6. Conformity Statemont A.Agency's Na.'Tle a.nif Address B. K1nr;i o!Agency H-.m. L.anf" Ay!allno C,nrpnrn'io.n U. S, **¢11'rtiti~1!Xi** Mectuoni<; Manvfa.::wr"'(

**.w~r11u** 

### 1W

**latem~tionaf Ga~e.way**  ,._,,,,_.

# ____ ForeiQ:fl
**Ct;lrtirlca~~** Mechnnlc C. Certltlcatfl N"- 

# ""' Co.illmhus .S!Itl* Q.I::L___ .( Ce-lilfica!itd

**Rep11~r** Siai.ion 

# - n, 43219-1/48

**~""t.r ~nHed**  **St~;~tes ~rtmC<t~«<**  **Matnt<:I'Mnc~** Or;Wllzatlon DYCR407D

D, I eertH)' thtJ.t the rep.a.lr and/or alteration madeto1he- un!t(s:) !ctenlifled tn item 5 above and rlascrtbed on the

**re~erne-** or aftadimetn.ts

**h~r>3tt:~ ha~**  bee-n made ina-ccordance with the requirerrnml5 ofPart4:9 of\.he U.S. Federal AVIation R;eg.ulat!ons and that th-e lnfQmHHion fumlshed herein Is true and

**ct:~rrect** to the best ofmy knowl-edge. Extended range fuel S!gnatureJOste

### orAuthoriZ-ed hid!llldual per 14 CFR Pan 43 

## 0 Nathan 

### A. Cichon



# ~- <i App.B

**~** 

### 03/07/12 ; ,Af:!e_roval for Rotumto Sorvlco Pur.>uaru 1o

**th~** authO-ri-ty given petsons {';peclfied below. the IJflit
**/{J~nt[ed** 111 i!etn 5 was **ln~pected** In

**th~** mqnoer pre.sQibM by the Admlr.l-stmtor ol (ha Feder<;!IAvla!Jon At.;1mll11Stl<'ltfon and Js :1] Approved 

### 0 ReJecte<.i '"

**~·** . '

**~** FAA Fll. Stando-rds- Manu-facturer Maintenance Organ!z:a!lon 

### l PetsOCl$

**APPfO\~** b)' Clinrul1an Inspector O<!lpartmo.rtl of TtaMport BY Otoor (Spoclly) f'"AA. Oes!gnee 

# " Rep.a;lr Sta!ron !nspcclion Autht;;riz-atlon Cesttritate or Signature/Date ofAutho.1ze:d !n<frvldual

**~ ~s~nal!on**  No.

DYCR407D 

### Nathan A Cichon //' 

# hr!::. ::> 

### 03/07/12 FAA Form 337 (1o..O£)To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13 PM Page: 14/15

NOTICE Weightand

**bt~!am:e** oroperatinglimitation changes shtlf/b& onfarodin-the uppropn"ateaircraftrecorrJ, An allerolion mvstbe compatibla With aff prevjous alterations to CJssuro continuedconformity with the applicable airworthiness requtremen!s, S. oasc·rip'tlon QfWort< A¢;Q:o:mplt:hod (tfmore$pao;J/$reqUired, attach acfctitrcmatsheets, Edettlifywith alfC'l:&ftnatfonafltye:ndregfstraticn mark enddale 1\-otkromp!$leO.)

1. Removed the folloWinO equipm.,nt:

Main Cabin Head!ine.r Vestibule Headliner Baggag.e Headliner 2. Installed the folloWing equipment: Main Cabin Headliner#1 Main Cabin Keadnner#2 Main Cabin Headliner#3 Main Cabin Headliner#4 Vestibule Headliner (#5) Baggage Headliner (#6) 

### ~SA N79
PN: 101-531·076 PN: 101-531.148·1 PN: 101·531153-1 PN: 1010-270·220·103 PN: 1010·270-220·105 PN: 1010-270-.220·107 PN: 101 D-270-220-t-09 PN: 1011J-270-22D·111 PN: 1010-270-220·113 

### Wt: 2s.eo ibs wt 1L90 /bs WI: 1i.14ibs Vet 7.941bs wt: 1.50 lbs Wt 6.94 Jbs Wt: 5.821bs Wt: 5.13 lbs \'It 7.25lb$ Arm: 215.00 Ann: 292.50 Arm: 3::6.50 Arm: 170.00 Arm: 199.00 Arm: 22<L00 Arm: zso.no Arm: 29LOO Arm: 32o.OO 3. The existing cabin1 vestibule and baggageheadl!ners were removed and a new cabin, vestibuie and bagge.ge headliners were installed .. The installation ofthe cabin, ve-stibufe and ba·gcg.age h-eadliners were aC"".....Oni))lished lAW approvedJormacAerospace drawing # 1010·070-220 documented on FAA form 8110·3 dated 0212S/12 as approved by Kennett, W. Thompson, DERT-510394-CE. 4. The exlstir)g cabin gasper oLIUets, cabin temp

**~·ensor,** emergency exit sfgns .and baggage Ue downs were a.H re-imt•lled in the cabin, vestibule and baggage headliners accordingly. Ths

**existin~** equipment was reinstall¢d lAWapproved JormacAemspace drawing# 1010-210-230 documented on FAA form 8110-3 dated D2J27!12 as approved by Kenneth W. Thompson, DERT·510394-CE. 5. Aircraft reweighed, new Weight and Balancedata entered in Aircraf! Filght Manual. 6. All pertinent data fs 

### on flie at laneAviation Corporation, CRS# DYCR40.YD under Work Order# 9_570 7. See JormacAemspace document# 101O·JMR-ICA for instructionsfor Continued Airworthiness. **······---·····-·-------~----------END-···--·---------·------------**

FAA Form 337 po.oo}To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13 PM Page: 15/15



### U.S. DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS 

### In The Matter Of: SPIRIT AVIONICS, LTD. Respondent. WASIDNGTON, D.C. ) ) ) ) ) 

### DOCKETNO. FAA-2014-0119 CASENO. 2012-GL-07-0056 JUDGE SULLIVAN For an award ofattorney fees and other Expensespursuantto the Equal Access to JusticeAct AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICANT'S COUNSELJERRY EICHENBERGER 

### NOW COMRS the Affiant, Jerry A. 

### Eichenberger, and for his Affidavit states as follows: 1. 

### I am over the age of 18, under no disability, competent to testify, and I understand the obligationsofan oath. 2. I have been an Attorneypracticing inthe areaofaviation law and have dealt withmatters involving FAA enforcement actions since 1975. 3. I have been an attorney in good standing since I obtained my license to practice law in 1975. 4. To the bestofmy knowledge and basedupon mymore than 40 years ofpracticing intlus area, mylaw firm, Eichenberger and Associates, Co. LPA is one oftwo law firms with a practice area dedicated to matters involving aviation law and FAA enforcement actions located inthe Columbus, Ohio area.

FurtherAffiantsayeth naught. 

### I, Jerry A. Eichenberger, declare this 16th day ofNovember, 2015, under penalty ofperjury that the above statements are true and correct.

Counsel for ApplicantTo: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13 PM Page: 01/15

Date: Tue Nov 17 17:11 EST 2015 

### TO Fax Number: 12022671293 Name: FAA Docket Clerk

**I;JCHEN~\ER<cif-R** f)._A 

# ,,, FROM

--"---·---
....**,.,,_..J.\-I::i.~Ui** Fax Number: 16147981620 Name: Patrick Moro Company: Subject: 2015-3309 (EAJA) Pages: 15 Notes: Please find the attached regarding the above referenced matter.

Sic. h·:·r·;,;-, '"'"·-, d' i->_-;;

**,,~.>-~·1<\~** .0,, i,i. ('.)'! f-'; "C':':;--"C'(f>t<C l

**/\~e~.)()(** !li]i{.li'i ;;;Q·::-•,'? F,-, ..\i";;-1 F.•'')<.>d. '/,•( l't(':' ><'' !-',:•: '"''' ''-'/"$j;,\·l$0i)