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

EJCllENBERCER &_ASSOCIATES 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: 

Hearing Docket Clerk 

AGC-430, Wilber Wtight Building 

Suite 2Wl 000 

To the Hearing Docket Clerk, 

November J 7, 2015 

R~;': Applicant's Reply 

FDJV!S No. 2015-3309 (EAJA) 

Please find the enclosed Reply to the Administrator's Response to Application for A ward of 

Attorney's Fees and Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act. All parties have been 

served via U.S. Mail and facsimile. 

If you have any questions ln processing this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at the 

number below-. 

Enclosures 

CC: 

Kate Barber, Esq. 

Lauren Ho yson, Esq. 

Judge J.E, Sullivan 

60;37 Frantz Road, Suite 107 i Dublin, Ohio43017 i T/ 614-798-16001. F/ 614-798-1600 i ww·w.ehlawyers.com 
To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13PM Page: 03/15 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Spirit Avionics, LTD., 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FDMS No. 2015-3309 (EAJA) 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0119 

Applicant, 

v. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator 

Federal Aviation Adminish·ation, 

Respondent. 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO ANSWER OF RESPONDENT 

Applicant, by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Reply to the Administrator's 

Response to Application for Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses under The Equal Access to 

Justice Act. 

INTRODUCTION 

In its Response to Application for Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses under the 

Equal Access to Justice Act (the "Response"), the Administrator 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. The Agency was not justified in pursuing its claim against Applicant and 

and as such, it Applicant is entitled to its Attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 
To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13PM Page: 04/15 

ARGUMENT 

A. The Agency was not Substantially Justified in pursuing its Action Against Applicant. 

The Administrator's assertion that it was substantially justified is based 011 a collection of 

arguments it has constructed after the fact to attempt to justify the reasonableness of its 

prosecution of this matter. Throughout the entire pendency of this matter, the Administrator had 

no credible evidence other than an invoice from Applicant to its sub-contractor to show that 

Applioant was liable f01 lh" o.llegeu uffeuse. Il is uf critical imponant to 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 substantially justified 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 of the law and facts before it, however the 

justifications asserted me either not reasonable or were never raised during the ligation of this 

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 reasonable to believe that a business would keep accurate documentation of its 

own transactions. 

From the onset of this matter, the Agency completely ignored the entire description 

contained on the invoice and the fact that invoices were issued to two parties, The invoice stated: 

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

"Lane Aviation portion of purchase and assembly of headliner 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 of the context of the 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 

neglected to do so. 

The second point raised in support of its position that it was substantially justified 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 of money and thus the manufactured parts were outside 

the contact between Applicant and the 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 

Administrator infers that Applicant had no authority to manufacture parts in the 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 of a product or article in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 43. 

The Administrator refers to Exhibit A, which is a selection of fom pages from a more 

than thirty-five page contract. Exhibit A, however, does not specifically state that manufactured 

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

parts are not the property of the FAA. Here, the Administrator appears to be arguing that since 

the word manufacture is not contained in the contract, any parts that were manufactured were not 

used in the FAA aircraft that were the subject of the contract, and therefore, they must 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 it is obvious the FAA 

would not draft a contract that would limit the privileges under its Repair Station Certificate. As 

stated above, § 43 gives the certificate holder the ability to produce replacement o:r modification 

articles. The parts in question are replacement and/or modification articles. 

One does not typically just purchase parts consumed in the modification or alteration of 

aircraft at your local aircraft supply store. There are quality processes put in place by the 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 of the 

headliners on the subject aircraft. 1 Page 2 of Exhibit A clearly states that the parts in question 

were approved by Kenneth W. Thompson, DERT-51 0394-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 not reasonable as there is no doubt the parts were titled to the FAA. 

Third, the Administrator asserts that it was substantially justified in pursuing this action 

because Applicant did not assert that the parts belonged to the FAA (meaning that they had title 

1 See Applicant's Exhibit A 

4 
To: 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 hearing on 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, it had miscalculated the cost 

of the headliner installation kits. Obviously, this conversation regarding sharing the loss related 

to the miscalculation would have occurred between Lane and Tritex prior to making ilic required 

engineering changes and manufacturing the 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 

govern the definition in Part 212

. 

To say that the invoice "could have" served as a cDntract between 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 FAA Response to Applicant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Page 4. 

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

after it is trying to justify the action itself Therefore, to now argue that it was their position that 

the U.C.C. controls is 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 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations, the contract with the Applicant's customer (the FA A), and the relationship between 

Applicant and its subcontractor, in an effort to penalize Applicant 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 of the matching 

invoice issued to Tritex Corp. for its share of the loss. 

The fact that Applicant waited until its motion to assert its theories of defense has 

absolutely no bearing on whether the Administrator was substantially justified in bringing this 

matter. This is an adversarial proceeding and the Applicant had no obligation to inform the 

Administrator on its theory of defense, partictdarly in light of the 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 of these proceedings, raising this 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 

inform her of its theory of defense prior to filing its Motion. 

Given the stakes of this litigation and the fact that the Administrator initially 

contemplated seeking revocation of Applicant'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 document request at the initiation of the proceeding. 

6 
To: 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 of raising this 

defense, it certainly had the opportunity to refute the defense on the issue of what constitutes a 

"sale" in its Response to Applicant's Motion. 

The Administrator claims it repeatedly asked for "Spirit Documentation or other proof to 

show that the transaction with Lane was something other than a sale as indicated on the invoice" 

and supports this claim with Exhibit C, the affidavit of Federal Aviation Administration Attomey 

Kate Barber. In Ms. Barber's Affidavit, she declared under the pains and penalty of perjury 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 of title and that the 

FAA was reasonable to defend this motion. 

What is even more egregious is the fact tl1at the plain language of §21.9 specifically 

states that a Part 43 Repair station may fabricate replacement or modification articles for use in 

consumption of an alteration. The Administrator attempts to assert that the parts in question were 

not consumed in the course of the alterations contemplated under the FAA contract, but offers no 

evidence in support of this contention. This is particularly conceming because 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 of the alleged offense. Therefore, there is no way 

that it can now assert it was substantial! y justified in bringing tlus action. 

In its response, the Administrator asserts that the Agency is substantially justified so long 

as it had (1) a reasonable basis in truth for the facts alleged; (2) a reasonable basis in law for the 

3 Barber Mdvt_ 1! 8. 

7 
To: 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 advanced 4 The government bears the burden of proving that its position meets the 

substantially justified standard. 5 To make this assessment, the court must review the record in its 

. 6 entirety. 

Based on a review of the 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 

connection between the facts alleged and the legal theory it 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 substantially justified in pursuing this action and attomey's fees and expenses of litigation 

should be awarded accordingly. 

B. Applicant is Entitled to the Amount of 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 of the 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. 

The Administrator 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. Hallmark Const. Co., 200 F.3d 1076 (7'6 Cir. 2000). 5 United States v. Hallmark Construction, 200 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2000) 6 Id. at 1081. 

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

evidence of a special factor such as qualified attorhcys or agents for the proceedings involved. 

Further, the Administrator contends that an exceptibn based 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 not particularly I 

rare, as they relate to areas of law commonly encoimtered by most 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 of law in Columbus, Ohio. In fact, A~plicant's cmmsel's law finn, to its cotmsel's I 

knowledge of practicing in this area for over 30 yews, consists of two of the three aviation law 

I 

attorneys in Columbus that practice in this area wit~ any regularity 7

• 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 of this matter. Applicant is 

also entitled to its fees at an increased rate because J special factor exists. 

[SIGNATURE ON FOLLOWING PAGE] ' 

7 I See Affidavit of Attorney Jerry Eichenberger Attached as Ex1p.ibit D. 

9 
To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13 PM Page: 12/15 

Respectfully submitted, 

erry A. Eichenberger 

Eichenberger & Associates, Co. LP A 

6037 Frantz Road, Suite 107 

Dublin, Ohio 43017 

Phone: 614-798-1600 

Facsimile: 614-798-1620 

Counsel for Applicant 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon the following parties by 

facsimile and U.S. Mail this 17'1 day of November, 2015. 

FAA Hearing Docket 

800 Independence Ave, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk 

AGC-430, Wilber Wright Building 

Suite 2Wl 000 

Fax: 202-267-1293 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Fax: 202-366-7536 

Kate Barber 

Lauren Boyson 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel, AGL-7B 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 

Fax: 847-294-7498 

10 
To: 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 REPAfR AND ALTERATION us Ocparlm.onl 

:!nB120l1 

~Tflll'l~i:!oll (Airframe,. Powerp!ant, 

f'O~FM M y 

F•d.r.al ,.t:.,.llolf""' Propeller, or Appliance) 

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 m a dvH penalty fnr each 

such YiO!a:Uon-. {49 u.s.y . .§46Jo1(o")J 

Nalionarrty and Kag!stration Mark Serial No. 

N79 1. Aircraft FF-14 

Ma~• Mo<iel \]Series 

Hawker Beech craft 300 

Ne:rne 

N/A 

(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=or FAA UU OnlY 

. 

4, Typa- 6~ unrt fduntlflcatl-on 

Repair Alteration una Make Model Seriaf No. 

0 0 AIRFRAME (As desatbod In rt-em 1 above) 

0 0 PO\NERPLANT 

----.. , .. --.. ·~ 

0 0 PROPELLER 

Typa 

0 0 APPUANCE Mmn/.aaute:r 

6. Conformity State mont 

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<; 

.w~r11u 1W latem~tionaf Ga~e.way 

Manvfa.::wr"'( 

,._,,,,_. ____ 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~«< 

- D, 

Matnt<:I'Mnc~ Or;Wllzatlon DYCR407D 

I eertH)' thtJ.t the rep.a.lr and/or alteration made to1he- un!t(s:) !ctenlifled tn item 5 above and rlascrtbed on the re~erne- or aftadimetn.ts h~r>3tt:~ 

ha~ bee-n made in a-ccordance with the requirerrnml5 of Part 4:9 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 of my knowl-edge. 

Extended range fuel S!gnatureJOste or AuthoriZ-ed hid!llldual 

per 14 CFR Pan 43 0 Nathan A. Cichon ~-<i App.B ~ 03/07/12 ; , Af:!e_roval for Rotum to 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<;! I Avla!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 of Autho.1ze:d !n<frvldual 

~ ~s~nal!on No. 

DYCR407D 

FAA Form 337 (1o..O£) 

Nathan A Cichon //' hr!::. ::> 03/07/12 
To: 12022671293 From: 16147981620 Date: 11/17/15 Time: 1:13 PM Page: 14/15 

NOTICE 

Weight and bt~!am:e or operating limitation changes shtlf/ b& onfarod in- the uppropn"ate aircraft recorrJ, An allerolion mvst be 

compatibla With aff prevjous alterations to CJssuro continued conformity with the applicable airworthiness requtremen!s, 

S. oasc·rip'tlon Qf Wort< A¢;Q:o:mplt:hod (tf more $pao;J /$reqUired, attach acfctitrcmat sheets, Edettlify with alfC'l:&ft natfonaflty e:nd regfstraticn mark end dale 1\-otk romp!$ 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 cabin

headliners were installed 

1 vestibule and baggageheadl!ners were removed and a new cabin, vestibuie and bagge.ge 

.. The installation of the cabin, ve-stibufe and ba·gcg.age h-eadliners were aC"".....Oni))lished lAW 

approved 

approved Jormac 

by Kennett, 

Aerospace 

W. Thompson, 

drawing 

DERT-510394-CE. 

# 101 0·070-220 documented on FAA form 811 0·3 dated 0212S/12 as 

4. The exlstir)g cabin gas per 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 

lAW approved Jormac Aemspace 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 Balance data entered in Aircraf! Filght Manual. 

6. All pertinent data fs on flie at lane Aviation Corporation, CRS# DYCR40.YD under Work Order# 9_570 

7. See Jormac Aemspace document# 101 O·JMR-ICA for instructions 

······---·····-·-------~----------END-···--·---------·------------

for Continued Airworthiness. 

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

In The Matter Of: 

SPIRIT AVIONICS, LTD. 

Respondent. 

WASIDNGTON, D.C. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0119 

CASE NO. 2012-GL-07-0056 

JUDGE SULLIVAN 

For an award of attorney fees and other 

Expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 

AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICANT'S 

COUNSEL JERRY EICHENBERGER 

NOW CO MRS 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 

obligations of an oath. 

2. I have been an Attorney practicing in the area of aviation law and have dealt with matters 

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 best of my knowledge and based upon my more than 40 years of practicing in tlus 

area, my law firm, Eichenberger and Associates, Co. LP A is one of two law firms with a 

practice area dedicated to matters involving aviation law and FAA enforcement actions 

located in the Columbus, Ohio area. 

Further Affiant sayeth naught. 

I, Jerry A. Eichenberger, declare this 16th day of November, 2015, under penalty of perjury that 

the above statements are true and correct. 

Counsel for Applicant 
To: 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: 2 015-3309 (E AJA) 

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)