### ;i:t'M-;T-Vii:t\iTO r ii],^NGPORWK) N SERVED : MARC H 5 , 201 2 "OCKET OPEil^AIIOMS ^0!? KA R " b P {•

• 3 3 UNITE D STATE S DFiPARTMlINT O P TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E 01-HBARING S WASHINGTON , D C Applicatio n o f RECURREN T TRAININ GCENTER , INC . FAA DOCKE T NO , CPIOGLOOIO , successo r l o CP09GL000 8 DMSNo . FAA-2O10--0973 , successo r t o [••AA-2009-097 1 (Equal Acces s t o Justic e Action ) 

### INITIA L DECISIO N FOLLOWIN G REMAN D O N APPLICATIO N FO R ATTORNEY' S FEE S

AN D OTHE R EXPENSE S Found : 1 ) Applican t

i s entitle dt o a n awar do f attorney' s fee s an dothe r expense s totalin g $16,826.83 ; an d 2 ) Applican t

i s no t entitle dt o a n awar dfo r agen t fees . 

### I . Backgroun d Thi s matte r

bega n a s a n applicatio n b y Recurren t Trainin g Center , Inc . ("RTC " o r "th e Applicant" ) unde r

th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Act , 5 U.S.C . 550 4 ("EAJA"or"th e Act" ) fo r attorney' s fee s an dothe r expenses , i n th e underlyin g proceeding , th e Federa l Aviation-Administratio n ("FAA " o r "th e agency" ) ha dcharge dRTC , a n Ai r Agenc y certificate dfo r

an approve dProvisiona l Pilo t School , wit hviolation s or55141.4J(b)(3) , 141.83(a)(1) , an d61.57(d ) ofth c Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s ("FARs") . Th e Initia l Decisio n ha dfoun dtha t th e agenc y faile dt o prov e th e charges . Federa l Aviatio n Admimstrationv . Recurrent TrainingCcma ; Inc. , FA

A Docke t

No . CP09GL0008 , Initia l Decisio n of

Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dC . Goodwin , sense dAugus t 11 . 2010 . RTC , no w th e Applicant , o n Septembe r 10 , 201 0 file dth e subjec t EAJ A applicatio n ("EAJA Application") . I t sough t a n awar dtotalin g $19,416.8 0 (EAJ A Application , Exhibi t

C) . Th e agenc y oppose dit . Th e EAJ A Applicatio n wa s denied . Th e Initia l Decisio n ("I.D." ) reasone dtha t th e agenc y hadsu.staine dit s burde n o f showin g tha t i t wa s "substantiall y justified " i n bringin g an dmaintainin g th e underlyin g action . Therefore , i t

wa s determined , n o awar dshoul db e mad e (initia l Decisio n Denyin g Applicatio n /orAttorfic>''5Fee s an dOt/ierExpeme s of Administrativ e Lawjudg e Richar dC . Goodwin , sen'e dlanuar^ ' 3 , 2011) .

### B y brie f o f February 21 , 2011 , RT C appeale d("Appellant s BrieP) . Th e FAA' s respons e announce dachang e i n position . Th e agenc y state dtha t i t "no w ha s determine dtha t

i t wa s no t substantiall y justified " i

n th e proceedin g below . Therefore , i t contijuied , "th e issu e i s limite dt o th e prope r amoun t o f lega l lee s an dothe r

expense s tha t ma y b e awardedpursuan t

t o th e EAJA " (Complainant' s Reply Brief , Ma y 9,2011 , p . 4) . Th e agenc y the n proceede dt o addres s th e element s o f RTC' s Application . It

too k issu e wit hcertai n o

f th e Applicant' s request s fo r fee s an dothe r

expenses . I

t aske dtha t th e Administrato r

resolv e th e issues . Th e Administrato r

on November

22 , 201 1 dismisse dRTC' s appea l an dremande d th e matte r

"fo r furthe r proceeding s a s necessar

y t o resolv e th e remainin g issue s regardin g th e prope r

awar dunde r

th e EAJA" ' Th e undersigned' s Orde r

on Remand , serve dDecember 9 , 2011 , se t

ou t aschedul e o f briefs . I n response , Applican t

o n Januar) ' 9 , 201 2 file

da"Brie f i n Suppor t o f Prope r Fees " ("Applicant' s Brief") . I t seek s attorney' s fee s totalin g $20,980.00 ; "researc hfees " fo r Joh n Killeen , RTC' s Presiden t an downer , totalin g $8,078.00 ; an dtota l expense s o f $174.26 . Th e tota l reimbursemen t sough t i s $29,232.2 6 (Exhibi t

A t o Applicant' s Brief) . Th e agenc y responde do

n Januar) ' 30 , 2012 , urgin g tha t Applican t

b e awardedno more tha n $11,579.9 6 ("Agency' s Brief") . Thi s bring s u s u p t o date . II . Element s o f a n Awar d A . Conclusio n 1 . Th e Statut e an d Regulation s EAJ A permit s th e awar do

f "fee s an dothe r

expenses " t o th e prevailin g pari y (othe r tha n th e LInite dStates ) i n a n adversary ' adjudicatio n unles s th e positio n o f th e agenc y wa s ''substantiall y justified " o r "special circumstances " make a n awar dunjust . 5 U.S.C . 5504 ; 1

4 C.F.R . 514.0 1 etscq . A s w e hav e seen , th e partie s d o no t nov v disput e tha t RTC qualifie s fo

r a n award. . It

i s th e natur e an damoun t o f th e awar d- th e "fee s an d othe r expenses " - tha t

i s contested . Th e Ac t require s "fee s an dothe r

expenses " t o b e "reasonable. " "Fees " ar e define d t o includ e "attorne y o r

agen t fees. " Th e Ac t

additionall y limit s th e awar do f suc hfee s t o $125 pe r hour , unles s a

n agenc y determine s b

y regulatio n tha t

"a n increas e i

n th e cos t o f livin g o r aspecial factor , suc ha s th e limite davailability o f quaUfiedattorney s o r

agents fo r th e proceeding s involved , justifie s ahighe r fee. " 5 U.S.C . 6504(b)(1)(A) ; se e also 14 C.F.R . 514.05(b) .

' Orde rOismissit^

^ Appea l an d Remandin g Maile rl o Adniini.siraiiv e LcnvJudge . FA AOrde rNo . 2011-12 , p . 2 . Orde rNo . 2011-1 2 als o state d tha t n o nee d existe d l o rul e o n RTC' s petitio n o f Jun e 8 , 201 1 fo rleave t o fil e a n additiona l brie f i n ligh t ofth e agency' s chang e o f position , whic h petitio n ha d bee n oppose d b y th e agency .

### 2 . Summar yo f Parties'Argument s

Th e Apphcan t

argue s tha t

i t qualifie s fo

r a n awar dbase do

n arat e o f $20 0 pe r hou r fo r it s attorne y an d$10

2 pe r hou r fo r Mr . Joh n M . Killeen , RTC' s Presiden t an d owner . Th e latte r

th e Applican t

assert s i s a

n "agent " unde r

th e Act . Se

e EAJ A Application , Septembe r

10, 2010 ; Applicant' s Brief , January ' 9 , 2012 . RT C ba.se s it s reques t fo r a n awar do f attorney' s fee s beyon dth e statutory ' uni t ca p o f $125 pe r hou r on thre e grounds : 1 ) th e "special factor " exception ; 2 ) standard s o f "reasonableness " se t

ou t i n th e agency' s implementin g regulations ; an d3 ) a n increas e i

n th e cos t o f living . Th e agenc y oppose s fe

e enhancemen t

base do n th e rationale s o

f specia l factor s an dreasonableness . I

t support s acost-of-livin g enhancement . Th e FA A als o oppose s an y awar dt o Applicant' s purporte dagent , Mr . Killeen .

3 . Rulin g I fin dtha t th e cost-of-livin g tacto r

justifie s a

n awar do f attorney' s fee s at

a n hourl y rat e greate r

tha n th e statucor) ' cap - specifically , arate o f $175.66 . I furthe r

fin d tha t n o othe r facto r ma y b e applie dt o enhanc e th e rate . Finally , 1 wil l den y Applicant' s reques t fo r reimbursemen t

on behalf o f Mr . Joh n Killee

n a s Applicant' s agent . Th e discussio n no w turn s t o th e argument s concernin g th e particula r component s o

f a n award . Eachrulin g i s frame dagains t abackgroun dtha t

EAJ A constitute s awaive r

o f sovereig n immunity and , a s such , mus t b e construe d"strictly i

n favoro f th e sovereign. " Mflso/if^Mflstcr , Inc. , v . Nc/son , 10 5 F.3 d708.71 2 (D.C . Cir . 1997) ; Fanning , i'hillipsandMolnarv . West , 16 0 F.3 d717,72 1 (Fed.Cir . 1998) . B . Special.Facto r Th e Applican t

submit s tha t

i t merit s a n awar do f attorney' s fee s a t

arat e o f $20 0 pe r hou r unde r th e "special factor " exceptio n t o th e statutor y cap . I n support , i t contend s tha t

it s attorne y ha s th e "specialize dskill[s ] needful fo r th e litigation " warrantin g applicatio n o

f th e exceptio n {citin

g Pierc e v . Underwood

, 4S 7 U.S . 552 . 57 2 (1988)) . RT C elaborate s tha t counse l ha s 3 5 year s o

f aviatio n trainin g resultin g i n "thoroug hknowledge " o

f th e FARs . Counse l als o ha s take n variou s safet y course s an d hold s a n advance daeronautica l degree . RT C assert s additionall y tha t th e awar dsough t i s justifie db

y th e "complexity ofth e issue " (Applicant' s Brief , p . 2) . Th e agenc y demurs . I

t point s ou t

tha t th e only "special factor " cite di n th e Ac t i s "th e limite davailability o

f qualifie dattorney s o r

agents fo r th e proceeding s involved " (citin g 5 U.S.C . §504(b)(l)(A)) . Lik e th e Applicant , th e FA

A turn s t o th e Suprem e Court' s analysi s i

n Pierce . I t note s tha t

th e Cour t

rule dtha t

th e quote dlanguag e refer s t o qualificatio n i

n "some specialize dsense. " Th e holde r mus t posses s "some distinctiv e knowledge " o r

th e "specialize dskill " als o cite db y RTC . A distinctiv e an dparticular ability , suc ha s expertis e i n paten t la w o r knowledg e o

f foreign law , coul dinvoke th e exception . But

RT C cite s onl y counsel' s genera l competenc e an dability . Thes e qualitie s'

- eve n i n a n extraordinar y degre e —canno t b e considere d"specia l factor[s], " th e FA A contend s idlin g Pierce , 48 7 U.S. , p . 572) . Nor , th e agenc y continues , niay th e exceptio n b e summone db y particula r competenc e i n administrativ e proceedings . Neithe r i s fe e enhancemen t

merite db y th e difficult y o f th e cas e o r

th e resul t

achieve d(Repl y Brief

, May 9 , 2011 , pp . 5-10) . I fin dtha t

a n awar do

f attorney's.fee s a t

arat e highe r

tha n th e statutory ' imi t ca p base do n th e "specia l factor " exceptio n i s no t warrante di n thi s case . Applicant' s reason s fo r

a n enhance dawar dinvolv e th e difficult y ofth e issue s an d th e abilit y of

counsel . Thes e ar e matter s of broa dan dgenera l application . The y ar e no t sufficientl y particula r

o r distinctiv e t o invok e th e exception . Pierc e v . Unda^\'ood,4S 7 U.S . 552 , 57 2 (1988) . No r

ar e complexit y o

f th e matte r

an dcompetenc e o

f counse l generall y factor s meritin g an awar denhancement . Sec , e.g. , Forshee v . Waterlo o indiisirics . Inc. , 17 8 F.3 d 52 7 ( 8 Cir . 1999) . Th e complexit y of thi s cas e doe s no t

remov e i t

fromth e genera l rule . Th e issue s involve dar e no t beyon dth e gras p o

f acompeten t

lawyer . T o hold , moreover , tha t th e matter' s difficult y require s applicatio n o f th e exceptio n woul dpermi t th e exceptio n t o swallo w th e rul e (Pierce , 48 7 U.S. , p . 573) . Th e principl e o f th e ravenou s exceptio n als o pertain s whe n considerin g whethe r counsel' s specialize dknowledg e an d expertis e i n aviatio n matter s warrant s enhancement . Man y lawyer s ar e specialists . "If bein g aspeciahs t

i s asufficien t

groun dfo r

afee awar dabov e th e statutor) ' presumptiv e ceiling, " i t

ha s bee n noted , "th e ceihn g i s adea dletter. " Mathcws-Sheets v . Astrue , 65 3 F.3 d 560 , 56 4 ( 7 Cir . 2011 ) (pe r Posner.J.) . Counsel' s applicatio n o f certai n distinctiv e knowledg e o r

skill s may i n aprope r

proceedin g warran t

differen t treatment , bu t

aviatio n law , I find , i s no t

th e typ e of

identifiabl e specialt y o r singula r proficienc y whic hrequire s invocatio n of

th e exception . I

n r e ScaledCas e 00-5116,25 4 F.3 d233 , 235-3 6 (O.C . Cir . 2001) . C . Reasonablenes s RT C als o argue s fo r

afe e enhancemen t

fo r it s attorne y base do n "reasonableness. " I n support , th e Applican t state s tha t

th e Department' s regulation s permi t award s base d o n customar) ' rate s charge db y attorney s i n th e community . RT C supplie daffidavit s supportin g it s propose drat e o f $20 0 pe r

hou r o n tha t basi s (EAJ A Application , p . 5 ; Applicant' s Repl y Brief, ^ p . 5 ; Applicant' s Brief , pp . 2-3 ; se

c 514.05) . Th e agenc y oppose s a greate r award . I t

argue s tha t

th e statut e doe s no t

permi t it . Th e Ac t

set s aceilin g of

$12 5 pe r hour . Fee s awarded , i t contends , ina y excee dth e ceilin g onl y upo n th e findin g of a "specia l factor " o r

acos t of livin g adjustmen t

(Agency' s Brief

, p . 4) . 1 fin dfo r th e agenc y o n thi s issue . Th e statut e i s clear . I t states , withou t

furthe r adornment , tha t

attorney' s fee s ar e cappe da t $12 5 pe r hou r unles s a n increas e i n th e cos t of livin g o r a"specia l factor " warrant s ahighe r fee . 5 U.S.C . 5504(b)(1)(A) ; se e als o

^ Thi s brief

, file do n Octobe r 22 , 2010 , wa

s submitte di n response t

o th e agency' s oppositio

n t o RTC' s Application . Th

e agency' s opposition , date

dOctobers , 2010 , is entitle di n ftjil "Agency' s Response t o Applicatio n fo r a n Awar do f Attorney' s Fees an

dOthe r Expense s Pursuan

t t o th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac t (EAJA). "

### 514.05(b) . I I th e prevailin g marke t

rate exceed s th e statutor y cap , th e statutoi y cap controls . D . The.Agent_Questlo n 

### Th e Applicant' s itemizatio n include s claim s fo r fee s base do

n task s undertake n b y it s Presiden t

an downer,Joh n M . Killeen . Mr . Killecn' s propose drat e o f reimbursemen t

i s $10 2 pe r hour . Killee

n propcri y i s considere da n "agent " unde r

EAJA, Applican t argues , an dhi s wor k

o n th e cas e thu s qualifie s fo r a n award . Mr . Killeen i s no t

a n attorney . Neithe r

i s he th e Applicant' s "alte r ego, " Applican t states . No r

wa s Killecn' s tim e spen t

o n th e matter , Applican t contends , i

n hi s capacity a s RTC' s chie f

Rathe r hi s tim e spen t

wa s "outsid e th e scope " o f hi s employment . Th e Applican t doe s no t asser t tha t Killecn' s undertaking s wer e performe dpursuan t t o contrac t o r othe r obligation. Mr . Killecn' s rate o

f reimbursemen t

i s base do n th e rate s o

f paralegal s i

n th e area . RTC , however , doe s no t

asser t tha t Killeen i s aparalegal i

n fact . RT C support s a

n awar d b y contendin g tha t

Mr . Killee

n wa s valuabl e an dvita

l t o th e preparatio n o

f it s case . H e rci^earchedan danalyze dregulations , publications , an dsimila r matter s unde r

directio n o

f counsel . Mr . Killecn' s contribution , moreover , actuall y lowere dth e amoun t o f Applicant' s overal l claim , th e Applican t argues , becaus e Mr . Killeen performe dtask s whic hotherwis e woul dhav e bee n "necessary " t o perfor mb y counse l - an dwliic hwoul d hav e bee n performe da t

counsel' s highe r

rate . EAJ A Application , pp . 5-6 ; Applicant' s Reply Brief

, p . 6 ; Applicant' s Brief

, pp . 4-5 . Th e FA A counter s tha t

th e task s performe db

y Mr . Killee

n are no t entitle dt o a

n award . H e canno t

b e considere da

n agen t unde r th e Act . EAJA, th e agenc y states , contemplate s tha t

agent s are "specialize dnon-attorne y practitioner s wh o arc authorize d t o represen t

chcnt s only wit hspecial permissio n o f agiven tribunal. " The y mus t b e inclividual s wh o "normall y suppl[y ] th e kin dan dqualit y o f ser\'ice s neede dt o prosecut e aclaim. " Mr . Killecn' s positio n an dth e task s he performe dma y no t b e s o categorized . H e simpl y di dno t

functio n a s a

n agent , th e FA

A concludes . Complainant' s Reply Brief , pp . 11-13 , quotin

g Fanning , Phillips , andMolnarv . West , 16 0 F.3 d717,721-2 2 (Fed.Cir . 1998 ) an d Lan e v . Departmen

t o f Agriculture , 29 4 F.3 d1001,100 3 ( 8 Cir . 2002) . Th e agenc y als o contend s tha t th e Ac t preclude s th e awar do

f bot hagen t

fee s an d attorney' s fees . It

point s ou t

tha t th e statut e refer s t o "reasonabl e attorne y o r agen t fees " (emphasi s supplied ; 5 U.S.C . 5504(b)(1)(A)) . Thi s disjunctiv e language , th e agenc y states , bar s recover

y o f agen t fee s whe n attorney' s fee s are reimbursable . Complainant' s Reply Brief

, p . 12 ; Lane

, p . 1003 . I findtha t th e FA A i s correct . Th e Act' s plai n - an ddisjunctiv e - languag e simpl y doc s no t permi t recover) ' o

f bot hattorne y an dagen t

fees . Sinc e RT C employe da n attorne y wh o i s seeking , an dqualifie s for, a n award , i t

ma y no t als o seek a n awar do n behal f o f apurporte dagent . Tha t

th e Act' s languag e i s disjunctiv e als o i s consonan t wit h it s aims , Th e purpos e o

f EAJ A i s t o eliminat e lega

l expense s a s abarrie r

t o challengin gunreasonabl e governmen t action . Communit

y Hearin g & Plumbin

g Co . v . Garrett , 2 F.3 d1143 , 114 5 (Fed.Cir . 1993) . T o furthe r thi s goal , i t

wa s contemplate dtha t partie s mounrin g suc hachalleng e woul db e compensate dfor expense s stemmin g Iro mth e cost s of representation . Lan

e v . Department

o f Agricukurc , 29 4 F.3 d1001,100 3 ( 8 Cir . 2002) . Sinc e Mr . Killee n wa s no t

representin g RT C i n th e underlyin g action , i t doe s no t advanc e th e purpos e ofth c Act , i conclude , t o compensat e hi mfo r hi s ser\'ices . I t

bear s remindin g tha t my determinatio n als o i s reache dagains t th e backgroun dof

th e principl e tha t waiver s o

f sovereig n iirununit y mus t b e strictl y construe di n favo r of th e government . Se

c l.D.,p.3 . Congres s i n enactin g th e law , moreover , understoo dtha t th e ter m"agents " include s non-attorne y specialist s authorize dt o practic e befor e aparticula r tribunal . Coo

k V . Brown, 6 8 F.3 d447 , 45 1 (Fed.Cir . 1995) . Th e ter mrefer s t o thos e wit hth e expertis e t o furnis h"th e kin dan dqualit y of service s neede dt o prosecut e aclaim " {Fanning , Phillip s an d Molmrv . West

, 160 F.3 d717,72 1 (Fed.Cir . 1998)) . Mr . Killee n plainl y doe s no t fi t thi s description , Nor , i n providin g considerabl e assistanc e t o RTC' s attorney , may h e b e transforme dint o aparalegal . H e simpl y i s no t s o qualified . Imprcs aConstmzion i Geom. Domenico Garuf

i v . U.S. , 100 Fed.Cl . 750,76 8 (Ct.Cl . 2011) . I n vie w of th e foregoin g I conclud e tha t Mr . Killecn' s tim e i s non-compensable . Applicant' s clai mof

$8,078.0 0 for

task s h e performe dwil l no t b e allowed. ' E . Cost.ofLivfn g I conclud e tha t

th e Applican t

i s entitle dt o an awar denhance db y ademonstrate d increas e i n th e cos t

of living . Ou r inquir y int o thi s questio n begins , a s always , wit hth e governin g statute . Th e Ac t state s initiall y tha t

attorney' s fee s ar e limite dt o a n hourl y rat e of $125 . I t goe s o n t o authoriz e a n enhancemen t base do n a'cost-of-livin g increas e ( 5 U.S.C . 5504(b)(l)(A)(ii) ; Agency' s Brief

, p . 4) . Th e $12 5 per-hou r rate , then , i s apresumptiv e ceilin g whic hma y b e overcome . Mc/(/jcu's-S/icct. s v . Astrue , 65 3 F.3 d560 , 56 3 ( 7 Cir . 2011) ; se c als o Amer.ica

n Wreckin g Corporaiionv.Sccretai y o

f Labor , 36 4 F.3 d321 , 329-3 0 (D.C.Cir . 2004) . Th e agenc y argue s tha t

whil e th e regulatio n i s silen t o n th e matter , Federa l court s i n civi l proceeding s hav e foun dtha t acost-of-livin g adjustmen t ma y b e warrante dbase d o n th e statut e whe n "significan t time " ha s passe dsinc e th e yea r i n whic hth e statutory ' ca p wa s set . (Tha t

yea r wa s 1996) . Complainant' s Repl y Brief , p . 15 ; 2 8 U.S.C . 52412 . Th e Applicant , o

f course , support s afee enhancemen t o n acost-of-livin g basi s (see , e.g. . Applicant' s Brie f

datedjanuar) ' 9 , 2012) . I fin dth e parties ' argument s persuasive .

" Mr . Killee n als o i s ineligible fo

r a n awar dbecause h

e wa s unde r n o obligatio n t o funiis hassistance . Extendin g a n awar dt o avoluntar

y helpe r invite s mischief

: i t "has th e potentia l t o ope n aPandora' s bo

x o f claims fro mlitigants wh

o asser t afrien do r famil y membe r wa s 'o f grea t assistance ' i

n the litigation bu

t who , ultimately , ha

dn o obligatio n t o assist . . . th

e potentia l fo r abuse i f atlorney's-fee s award s wer

e l o b e e.Nlende di n suc hamanne r i s quit e high. " U.S . v

. Clara . 57 9 F.3 d452,46 8 (5 Cir . 2009) .Th e proponen t of arat e enhancemen t

o n thi s basi s ha s th e burde n of showin g t:hat th e cos t o l livin g ha s increase dfro mapoin t recognize da s th e bas e period . Cost-of

livin g figure s ar e foun di n th e Dc|:)artmcn t o f Labor' s Consume r

Pric e Inde x ("CPl") . Th e adjuste dhourl y rat e i s the n calculated . Filiratio n Dc\'clopmcn t Co. , LLC , v

. U.S. , 6 3 Fed.Cl . 612,625(2005) . III . Calculatin g th e Awar d W e no w determin e th e prope r Input s for

calculatio n of

attorney' s fee s properl y reimbursabl e l o Applican t unde r EAJA . A . Base_Fe e Prio r t o examinatio n of

cost-of-livin g changes , i f any , th e bas e uni t

fe e t o whic h an y multiplie r

wil l appl y mus t

b e determined . I

n th e instan t

matte r an y cost-of-livin g enhancemen t

wil l b e applie dt o th e rat e of $12 5 pe r hour . Applican t

ha s show n throug h affidavit s tha t

th e prevailin g rat e fo r

lawyer' s fee s i n th e communit y i n whic hcoun.se l practice s i s greate r

tha n tha t

figure . Se

e EAJ A Application , Exhibit s D an dE . Complainan t

doc s no t

tak e issu e wit hth e informatio n containe dtherein . No r d o 1 fin d an y reaso n t o questio n it . A s such , 1 fin dtha t abas e fee o

f $12 5 pe r hou r i s appropriate . B . The.Prop_er_Expens_e^Recoyery

_Perio d Applican t

ha s submitte dan itemize dUstin g o f it s action. s resultin g i

n attorney' s fees . I t request s suc hfee s beginnin g i n Octobe r 2008 . A t

tha t time , accordin g t o it s request , coimse l undertoo k revie w of

th e FAA' s Notic e of

Propose dCivi l Penalty . Se e Applicant' s Brief

, Exhibi t A . Bu t reimbursemen t

ma y no t begi n a t tha t stag e i n th e process . DO T regulation s d o no t permi t a n awar dfo r

wor k performe dprio r

t o th e issuanc e ofth e Complaint . 1 4 C.F.R . 614.05(e) ; se e a/s o Wesfcn

i Ai r E.v/ifcs.s, FA

A Orde r No . 2011- 7 (Jun e 13 , 2011) , pp . 6-8 ; Ernes t Wilson , FA

A Orde r No . 1990-1 7 (Apri l 9,1990) , pp . 2

- 3 . f hercfor e n o attorney' s fee s ma y b e reimburse dfo r wor k carrie dou t

prio r t o th e dat e ofth e issuanc e o

f th e Complaint , whic hi s Octobe r 8 . 2009.' ' Complainan t

argue s tha t

n o fee s o r

expense s incurre dafte r Ma y 3 , 201 1 shoul db e awarde dbecaus e Applican t "unreasonabl y protracted " th e proceeding . DO T regulation s prohibi t th e awar dof

fee s an dothe r

expense s for

an y portio n of

amatte r i n whic ha part y "unreasonabl y protract[s] " th e proceedings . 1 4 C.F.R . 514.02. Th e basi s fo r Complainant' s assertio n i s tha t o n th e propose dcutof

f dat e th e agenc y determine dtha t i t wa s no t substantiall y justifie di n th e litigatio n an doffere dApplican t asettlement . ''Applicant' s initia

l request fo r reimbursement, containe

di n its EAJ A Applicatio

n o f Septembe r 10 , 2010 , di dbegi n itemizatio

n wit hth e Octobe r 8 . 200 9 dat e ofth e issuance ofth e Complaint . Application , Exhibi t C . Bu t Applicant' s updated , an

dcurrent, reimbursemen

t request withou t explanation als o include s severa l item s prio r lo tha t date . Th e curren t reques t itemize s beginnin

g Octobe r 22 , 2008 , an

dends Septembe

r 30 , 2009 . Th e tota l fe e awar drequeste dfo r pre-Coiiiplain

v items i s $2,020 . Se

e Applicant' s Brie

f (served Januar y 9 . 2012) , Exhibi

t A . (Additionally , th

e curren t reques t erroneousl

y lists th e dal e ofth e Complain

t a s Octobe r 6 . 2009 ; th

e origina l itemizatio

n show s th e correc t date , Octobe

r 8) .Agency' s Brief , pp . 7-8 . Complainan t

doe s no t tak e issu e wit han y othe r aspec t o f Applicant' s itemization . 1 declin e t o limi t

th e Applicant' s awar do n th e basi s stated . Complainan t doe s no t explai n wh y th e mer e offer o f settlemen t

shoul dforeclos e reimbursemen t request s beyon dth e dat e of

th e offer . No r

doe s i t sugges t an y othe r

reaso n wh y Applicant' s wor k o r conduc t afte r Ma y 3 , 201 1 amount s t o unrea.sonabl e protractio n of tfii s proceeding , an d I fin dnone . Complainant' s contentio n i s rejected. ^ Thu s th e expens e recover) ' perio di s foun dt o begi n o n Octobe r 8 , 2009 , th e dat e of th e issuanc e of

th e Complaint , an den do n January ' 9 , 2012 , th e dat e Applicant' s Brie f wa s served . Th e numbe r o f attorne y hour s i n tha t

perio dtota l 94.8.' ' C . Cost_of_Llving_Adius_tnnen t I n computin g th e enhance dhourl y rat e throug happlicatio n of cos t of livin g increases . Complainan t urge s tha t

th e formul areference di n Nationa l Transportatio n Safety Boar d("NTSB" ) regulation s b e used . Tha t formul adivide s th e Consume r Pric e Inde x ("CPl" ) fo r

th e rime perio ddurin g whic hth e properl y reimbursabl e attorney' s fee s wer e incurre db y th e bas e CPl . Th e determinatio n i n thi s cas e of bot hth e appropriat e bas e perio dan dth e perio d durin g whic hattorney' s fee s wer e incurre d-th e denominato r an dnumerator , respectively , i n th e equatio n - i s no t withou t difference s of

opinion . Complainan t contend s tha t

th e bas e perio dshoul db e th e yea r 1996 . sinc e th e curren t

statutor y ca p wa s se t i n tha t year . Th e averag e annua l CP l for th e yea r 199 6 wa s 156.9 . Th e agenc y furthe r urge s tha t

th e perio ddurin g whic hfee s wer e incurre dshoul db e detennine dt o b e th e firs t

yea r th e wor k

wa s performed . Th e FA A woul dutiliz e tha t

yea r a s th e bas e "fo r eas e o f calculation " (citingTchcmf;oi(v . Mwi^dsc)', 51 7 F.3 d506,51 2 ( 7 Cir . 2008)) . In thi s proceedin g th e bas e yea r woul db e 2009 . Th e averag e annua l CP l lo r th e yea r 200 9 wa s 214.537. ^ Th e resul t become s th e new , adjuste drate. ^ I wil l adop t

asomewha t

differen t approac ht o th e calculatio n of both-th e bas e perio dan dth e perio ddurin g whic hattorney' s fee s wer e incurred . *Othe r fee-shiftin g statute s expressl

y ba r prevailin g partie s fro

mrecovering ailomey' s fees followin g a writte n seulemen

l offer , s o lon g a s certai n othe r condition s ar

e met. See . eg - th

e Individual s wit

h Disabilitie s i

n Educatio n Ac t ("IDEA") , 2

0 U.S.C . §1415(i)(3)(D);5i?ea/.vo./as7iHi/W . v . Lansin g Public Schools . 161 F.Supp.2

d888(N.D.III . 2001) . EAJA, however, contain s n o suc hprovision , an

dn o basi s exists fo r implyin g o r engraftin g one . " ^ Th e date s o f Applicant' s final two entrie s ar e state das , respectively , Januar

y 7 an d9 , 2010 . Thi s i s a

n obviou s typographica

l error ; the date s shoul

drea dJanuar y 7 an d9 , 2012 . ^ Th e source s fo

r thes e figures, an

dal l subsequen

t figures, ar e th e CP l indices . Th

e U.S . Departmen

t o f Labor , Burea u o f Labo r Statistics , publishe s Ih

c indices , b

y mont han dyear, a t ftp://flp.bls.gov/pub/special.requesls/cpi/cpiai.ixt. * 49 C.F.R : §826.6 . Th

e bas e rat e use di n the NTS B regulatio

n actuall y i s the origina

l 198 1 rat e o f S75 pe r hour . Sinc e th e statutor y ca p wa s increase dfi^om$7 5 (

o $12 5 effectiv e Marc h1996 , th e I.D. , a s noted , instea duses $125 a

s th e base uni t rate . Se e Complainant' s Repl

y Brief , pp . 15-16 .1 fin dtha t th e mont ho

f Marc h1996 , th e effectiv e dat e of th e amende dstatutor y ca p o \$12 5 pe r

hour , i s amor e exac t

an dfaire r

baselin e fo r

calculatin g th e cos t

o f livin g adjustmen t

("COLA" ) tha n th e yea r 1996 . Th e CP l fo r

Marc h199 6 wa s 155.70 . 1 a m persuaded , further , tha t th e COL A shoul db e determine dusin g th e mid-poin t mont hof th e perio ddurin g whic hreimbursabl e scn'ice s wer e performed , rathe r tha n th e firs t

yea r of thos e services . Thi s calculatio n mor e accuratel y rcQcct s th e CP l durin g tha t period , an dthu s woul dresul t

i n amor e equitabl e rat e of reimbursement . I t

als o i s th e metho d adopte db y severa l Federa l court s i n fee-shiftin g proceedings. ^ Th e mid-poin t o f Applicant' s reimbursabl e lega l sendee s occurre di n Novembe r 2010 . Th e CP l fo r

tha t mont hwa s 218.803 . Th e resultan t

COLA , I find , mor e accuratel y reflect s cos t of livin g change s betwee n th e tw o periods , k provide s amor e precis e an dfaire r multiplie r

for fe e enhancemen t

purposes .

• D - ThejCaJculatioj i paymen t wil l b e calculate dan dauthorize dusin g th e "lodestar " approach . Th e lodesta r approac hascertain s th e numbe r of hour s reasonabl y expende do n th e litigatio n an dmulriplie s th e tota l b y areasonabl e hourl y rate . Applegatcv . Unite dStates , 5 2 Fed.Cl . 751,76 4 (2002) . 1 hav e examine dth e item s submitte db y Applican t for th e calculatio n o

f a n awar do

f attorney' s fees , and , excludin g th e item s previousl y discussed , 1 fin dbot hth e wor k an dth e hour s expende dt o b e reasonable . Th e calculatio n of

a n awar dof

attorney' s fee s an dothe r expense s i s a s lollows : 218.80 3 (th e CP l a t

mid-point ) divide db y 155.7 0 (th e CP l fo r Marc h1996 ) = 1.4052858 . Applyin g th e resultan t

COL A t o th e baselin e hourl y rat e of $12 5 field s $175.6 6 (rounde d off) . Thi s adjuste dhourl y rat e i s the n multiphc db y th e numbe r of hour s reasonabl y expended , whic hha s bee n foun dt o b e 94.8 . Th e resul t i s $16,652.57 . Ad d$174.2 6 i n expense s tha t

th e Applican t

spen t fo r postag e durin g th e operativ e perio d(Applicant' s Brief , Exhibi t A) , an dth e awar dt o Apphcan t total s $16,826.83. IV . Conclusio n Fo r th e reason s stated , th e Applican t i s entitle dt o an awar di n th e amoun t of $16,826.8 3 fo r

attorney' s fee s an dothe r expense s pursuan t

t o th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e

' See . e.g. . Inipres aConsiruzion i Geom . Domenic o Garuf i v. U.S. . 10

0 Fed.Cl . 750 . 77 7 (20 1 1) ; Elcyzyn v . Brown . 7 Vet.App . 170 , 18 1 (1994 ) (in whichth e Cour t state dtha

i i t "wil l permit-an dencourag e - the selectio n o f

asingl e mid-point

date . . . [biase do

n thi s Court' s five year s o f experienc e . . .") . i

n th e Tchemko u cas e cite db

y Applicant

fo r th e propositio n tha

t ihc CP l ma

y us e the yea

r i n whic hthe wor

k ha d been first performed , i

t is note dtha

t i n tha t case , tha t metho dha

dbee n suggeste db

y the applicant' s counse l

- thereb y awardin g counse l alesser total fe e i n th e subjec t

year s (200 6 an d2007 ) tha n ha dthe mid-point metho dbeen utilized . Se e ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requesis/cpi/cpiai.lxt .1 0

Act , 5 U.S.C . 5504 , an dimplementin g regulation s 1 4 C.F.R . 514.0 1 ctscq-. ^ S O ORDERED .

f-d-Gr6tio3w r Administrativ e La w Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t

' ^ Thi s decisio n become s final 3 0 day s afte r it s issuanc e unles s apart y appeal s or

th e FA A Decisionmake r take s revie w under

hi s or he r own initiative . 1

4 CF R§ 14.28(a) . Th e appeal mus t b e either (a ) maile dt o the Federal Aviatio n Administration , 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Washington , D.C . 20591 , Attention : Hearin g Docket

Clerk . AGC-430 , Wilbur Wrigh t Building-Suit e 2W1000 ; o r (b ) delivere dpersonall y or vi aexpedite dcourie r

servic e t o the Federa

l Aviatio n Adminislration , 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. . Wilbur Wright Buildin g - Suite 2 W1000 , Washington . D.C . 20591 . Attention : Hearin g Docket Clerk . AGC-430 .FA A Docke t No . CPIOGLOOI O (Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Act ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbur^Wrigh t

Buildin g - Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Charle s R . Barnett , 111 , AppUccuU \ s Cowise l 166 4 Moorlan dLan e Crysta l Lake , I L60014-298 5 TEL : 815-356-864 7 FAX : 815-356-704 2 Brian aMartino , Agenc y ' v Counse l Grea t Lake s Region , AGL-7 M Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 230 0 Eas t

Devo n Avenu e . De s Plaincs , I L60018-469 6 TEL : 847-294-731 3 FAX : 847-294-749 8 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC Goodwin , Ac/niinixfraliv e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Wiishington , D C 2059 0 '• TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r I 202-366-512 1 Stafl'Assistant/Paralega l FAX" . 202-366-753 6

^ Scr\'ic e wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r se n ice i n perso n o r b y expeditedcouner , use th

e followin g address : Federa l Aviatio n AdniinisUalion , 600 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Siul e 2W1000 . Washington . D

C 20591 , Auention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .