11/03/201 0 10:1 8 FA X 202483514 2 FA A * QM S 0001/00 9

SERVE D OCTOBE R22 , 201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . APPLICATIO N O Fi-^ RECURREN T TRAININ G CENTER , INC . - 3 i ji^i ^ Fo r fee s an dexpense s unde r

th e ^ CJ'S m Equal Acces s t o Justic e Ac t ^ >j^ ^ FA A DOCKE T NO . (CPlOGLOOl 0 ) <~ o (Civi l Penalty Action ) ' ^ FDM S NO . (FAA-2010-0973 ) o o

APPLICANT' S REPL Y BRIE F COME S NOW Respondent , RECURREN T TRAININ G CENTER , INC. , b y an dthroug h it s counsel , BARNET T LA W OFFICES , P.C , pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . §1 4 an dhereb y files it s REPL Y BRIE Fi n th e instan t matte r an dstate s a s follows : I . HISTOR Y O FTH E MATTE R 1 . O n Septembe r

21,2009 , Applicant , Recurren t Trainin g Centers , Inc . ("RTC" ) wa s advise dthroug h aFinal Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalt

y that th e FAA propose dt o asses s acivi l penalt

y i n th e amoun t

o f $3,850 . 2 . O n Octobe r

5,2009 , th e FAA receive dRTC' s timel y vmtte n reques t for ahearing . 3 . RT C hold s an dat

al l time s mentione dherei n hel da n Ai r Agenc y Certificate Numbe r R9KS949 K

fo r a n approve dProvisiona l Pilo t Schoo l wit

h aSpecia l Preparaiio n Course s ratin g issue db y ih c FAA .11/03/201 0 10:1 8 FAX 202483514 2 FA A ^ DM S @l002/00 8

4 . RT C als o hold s an da l al l time s mentione dherei n hel dTrainin g Center Certificate Numbe r R9KX049 K

wit h Trainin g Specification s t o conduc t trainin g course s wit

h respcctt o 1 4 C.F.R . 142 . 5 . O n o r abou t Januar y 16 , 2008 , RT C certifie dthat Mr . VanBerko msuccessfull y complete da n Instrumen t

Proficienc y Chec k

("IPC" ) an do n Decembe r 17 , 2007 , RT C certifie dtha t

Mr . Moore successfull y complete da n Instrumen t

Proficienc y Check , Thes e IPC s were performe din aFligh t Trainin g Devic e ("FTD") , Leve l 1 , 3 , o r 6 . 6 . Circlin g Approache s an dLandin g from aStraight-i n o r Circlin g Approac h maneuver s canno t b e performe dwit

h aFligh t Trainin g Devic e ("FTD" ) Leve l 1 , 3 o r 6 . 7 . FT D Leve l 1 , 3 an d6 ar c th e FTD s approve dfor RTC . 8 . Th e IPC' s give n t o both pilot s di dnot les l for Landin g fromaStraight-i n o r Circlin g Approac h maneuver s . 9 . Th e Complainan t

asserte dtha t

a n IP C mus t

tes t for al l th e Instrumen t

Ratin g Practical Tes t Standard s ("PTS") . Th e PT S include s Landin g fro maStraight-i n an dClircling Approac h maneuvers . 10 . Th e Agenc y argue dIha l RT C committe dthre e violation s for th e FAR's : a . §14L41(b)(3), b . §141.83(a)(1 ) an d c . §61.57(d ) 11 . RT C argue dthat

th e languag e o f

61.57(d ) i s clear

an dunambiguou s o n it s fac e an d that a n IP C nee donl y includ e " arepresentativ e numbe r o f tasks" . 12 . 'iTi e Cour t foun dthat

ther e wer e n o genuin e issue s o f materia l fac t

an dtha t th e matte r coul db e decide do n question s o f la w (Attache da s Exhibi t

A t o Application , Decision , I . Para . 7) . 13 . Th e Cour

t state di n it s decisio n that

all allegation s hinge dupo n a n evaluatio n o f

th e languag e o f

1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d) . (Attache da s Exhibi t A t o Application , Decision , III . Para . 2 ) 14 . Th e Court

fiirther state di n it s decisio n tha t

th e prope r

readin g o f

1 4 C.F.R . §6 1 -57(d ) require s accomplishmen t

o f a"representativ e number " o f PT S task s - no t

al l o f them , an dno t necessaril y th e one s name di n th e PT S chart . (Attache da s Exhibi t A t o Applicafion , Decision , FIT . Para . 4 ) 15 . Ih e Agency' s positio n woul deffectivel y delet e th e word s "representativ e number " an dth e manifes t

inten t o f th e regulatio n woul dthu s b e thwarted . (Attache da s Exhibi t A t o Application , Decision , 11 1 Para . 4 )11/03/201 0 10:1 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S gl003/00 9

16 . Th e Cour

t further state dtha t

th e Agenc y relie do n statement s fromth e PI S v/hic h d o not hav e th e forc e o f

law . Becaus e th e PT S lacks legal effect , i t may no t impos e dutie s not compelle db y th e plai n word s o f 1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d) . (Attache da s Exhibi t A t o Application , Decision , III . Para . 6 ) 17 . Moreover , (he Cour

t stated , 1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d ) require s n o explainin g o r supplementatio n by referenc e t o extrinsi c documents . A s such , th e argument s o f th e Agenc y ar e besid e th e poin t (Attache da s Exhibi t

A t o Application , Decision , TI L Para . 7 ) 18 . Lastly , th e Cour

t decide dtha t

th e allegation s o f

th e Complain t

were not prove n an d th e Complian t

i s "hereb y dismissed" . (Attache da s Exhibi t A t o Application , Decision , II I Para . 8 )

I . ARGUMEN T 1 . Substantia l Justificatio n Th e underlyin g evidenc e availabl e t o th e Agenc y i n thi s matte r i s non e othe r

tha n th e Federal Aviatio n Regulation s themselves . Simply put , th e Agenc y attempte dt o creat e a violatio n where non e existed . Th e Cour t foun dtha t

th e Agency' s interpretatio n i n thi s cas e woul dhav e effectivel y delete dth e word s "representativ e number " o f tasks . Further , thi s interpretatio n wa s no t

consisten t

wit h th e Agency' s ow n interpretation s an dpublicjrtions . I n fact , th e practic e o f

conductin g IPC' s in a

n FT D b y performin g arepresentativ e numbe r o f TASKL s at th e discretio n o f

th e examine r

wa s awid e spreadpractic e i n th e industry a s evidence db y previousl y produce dexhibit s (see , for example . Respondent' s Exhibi t R-1 ) Further , RT C ha s conducte dIPC' s i n it s FTD' s for som e twenty year s with th e ful l knowledg e an dconsen t

o f th e FA A prio r

t o th e presen t

enforcemen t

action . Tlii s matte r aros e becaus e th e Agency' s interpretatio n o f it s ow n regulatio n i n thi s particular matte r i s arbitiary , capriciou s an dotherwis e no t accordin g t o law . I n othe r words , th e Agenc y wa s no t substantiall y justifie di n it s interpretatio n becaus e th e Agenc y alread y kne w o r shoul dhav e11/03/201 0 10:1 8 FA X 202483514 2 FA A * DM S g|004/00 9

know n tha t

thi s lates t

interpretatio n wa s not

consisten t

with any o f

it s prio r applicatio n o f

th e regulation . Th e Agenc y argue s it s positio n wa s substantiall y justifie di n thi s matter , however , th e Cour t state d(ha

t th e "operativ e language " o f 1 4 CF R§61.57(d ) i s clea

r an dunambiguou s an dgoe s o n t o us e th e New America n Heritag e Dictionary o f th e Englis h Languag e t o defin e th e word"representative" . I t woul dappear , then , that th e Agency' s positio n woul db e substantiall y justifie donl y i f i t di dno t hav e acces s t o adictionary . In th e Agency' s reply , i t state s tha t

th e Agency' s interpretatio n o f 1 4 CF R§61.57(d ) require s "specific , representativ e tasks " i n orde r t o accomplis h an instrumen t proficienc y check . Th e Agenc y ha s unilaterall y adde dth e word"specific " t o th e interpretatio n o f a regulatio n tha

t contain s n o suc h word . "Specific " ha s ameanin g completel y contrary t o "representative " an di s not areasonabl e interpretatio n whic h coul db e vise dfor substantia l jmtificatio n o f

a n enforcemen t

actio n whic h ha s continue dsinc e Octobe r 16 , 2008 . I n it s response , th e Agenc y quote s languag e fromth e PT S whic h th e Court ha s confirme d doe s no t hav e th e forc e o f

law . Th e Agenc y quote s th e itali c bol dwording , "Adherenc e t o th e provision s o f

th e regulation s an dth e practica l tex t standard s i s mandator y fo r th e evaluatio n o f

instrumen t

pilo t applicant s (underlin e added) . Pilot s wh o requir e an instrumen t

proficienc y chec k

ar e rro t instrumen t

pilo t applicants : the y alread y hol da n instrumen t

pilo t certificat e an dar e merel y seekin g to compl y with §61.57(d ) i n orde r t o maintai n thei r

proficiency . Again , i t

i s no t areasonabl e positio n t o plac e arequiremen t o n a pilo t wher e on e simpl y doe s no t exist .11/03/201 0 10:1 8 FA X 202433514 2 FA A + DM S 0005/00 9

2 . Awar d Th e awar dsough t

b y th e Applican t

i s reasonabl e pursuan t

t o 1 4 CF R§ 14.05 ' a s previousl y se t

fort h i n RTC' s application . Specifically , th e Cour t may consider , inte r

alia , th e attorney' s customar

y fee for simila r services , th e prevailin g rat e use db y othe r attorney s i n th e community an dth e tim e reasonabl y spen t i n ligh t o f th e difficult

y o r complexity o f

th e issue s i n th e proceeding . RTC' s applicatio n clearl y demonstrate dtha t th e attorney' s fee was , i n fact , (h e customar

y fee charge dan dsupplie dtw o affidavit s fromlocal attorney s demonstratin g tha t

rat e wa s a

t o r belo w th e rate s charge db y thos e attorney s for simila r .services . Further , considerin g th e tim e spent i n ligh t o f th e fac t tha t thi s matte r

stem s froma 1 § 14.0 3 Allowanc

e fee s an dexpenses . (a ) Award s wil l b e base d o n rate s customaril y charge d b yperson s engage d i n tii e busines s o f actin g a s attorneys , agents , an d expert witnesses , eve n i f th e service s wer e mad e availabl e withou t charg e o ra t a reduce d rat e t o th e applicant . (b ) N o awar d fo rth e fe e o f a n attorne y o ragen t unde rthi s part ma yexcee d $12 5 pe rhour , o rsuc h rat e a s prescribe d b y 5 U.S.C . 504 . N o awar d t o compensat e a n exper t witnee s ma y excee d th e highes t rat e a t whic h th e agencypay s exper t witnesses . However , a n av^r d ma yals o includ e th e reasonabl e expense s o f th e attorney , agent , o rwitnes s a s a separat e item , i f th e attorney , agent , o rwitnes s ordinaril ycharge s dient s separatel yfo rsuc h expenses . (c ) I n determinin g th e reasonablenes s o f th e fe e sough t fo ra n attorney , agent , o rexper t witness , th e A U o r adjudicativ e office rshal l conside rth e following : (1 ) I f th e attorney , agent , o rwitnes s i s i n privat e practice , hi s o rhe rcustomaryfe e fo rsimila rservices , o ri f a n employe e o f th e applicant , th e full yallocate d cos t o f th e services ; (2 ) Th e prevailin g rat e fo rsimila rservice s i n th e communit yi n whic h th e attorney , agent , o rwitnes s ordinaril y perform s services ; (3 ) Th e tim e actuall y spen t i n th e representatio n o f th e applicant ; (4 ) Th e tim e reasonabl yspen t i n ligh t o f th e difficult y o rcomplexit yo f th e issue s i n th e proceeding ; an d (5 ) Suc h othe rfactor s a s ma y t>ea ro n th e valu e o f th e sen/ice s provided . (d ) Th e reasonabl e cos t o f an ystudy , analysis , engineerin g report , test , project , o rsimila rmatte rprepare d o n behal f o f a part y mayb e awarded , t o th e exten t tha t th e charg e fo rth e sen/ic e doe s no t excee d th e prevailin g rat e fo rsimila r services , an d th e stud yo rothe rmatte rwa s necessar yfo rpreparatio n o f th e applicant' s case - (e ) Fee s nna

yb e awarde d onl y fo rwor k performe d afte rth e issuanc e o f a complaint , o ri n tti e Defaul t Adjudicativ e Proces s fo ra protes t o rcontrac t disput e unde rpart 1 7 o f thi s chapte ran d th e AMS .11/03/201 0 10:1 8 FAX 202483514 2 FA A ^ DM S @l00G/00 8

Fina l Notic e o f

Propose dCertificate Actio n tha t wa s serve dove r

on e year ago , th e attorney' s fee s ar e no t

unreasonabl e b y an y standard . Th e fee s charge db y Mr . Joh n Killee n were base do n th e rale s o f paralegal s in th e area , no t lo r wor k a s a n attorney . Mr . Killee n i s no t an attorney , no r

doe s h e porten dt o b e a

n attorne y o r

offe r lega l advice . Contrar

y t o th e Agency' s respons e brief , Mr . Killee n i s no t

a n alte r eg o o f RT C no r was h e conductin g dipr o s e defense . RT C employ s numerou s peopl e rangin g fro minstructor s t o administrativ e staff . Mr . Killeen' s familiarity wit h th e operatio n an d(he regulation s governin g tha t operatio n wa s avaluabl e resourc e tha t save dnumerou s hour s o f researc h o n th e part

o f RTC' s counsel . Contrary t o th e Agency' s response , Mr . Killeen' s tim e wa s spen t outsid e th e scop e o f

hi s corporat e employmen t

with RTC . I

n additio n t o hi s responsibilitie s a s th e presiden t o f RTC , Mr . Killee n sacrifice dhi s availabl e free tim e t o assis t RTC' s counse l i n defendin g th e Agency' s unreeisonabl e an dunjustifiabl e enforcemen t action . Whil e th e Agenc y woul dhav e thi s cour t believ e tha t

Mr . Killee n spen t

a n excessiv e amoun t

o f tim e workin g o n thi s matter , i t shoul db e note dtha t

thi s complain t

wa s serve dupo n RT C i n Octobe r o f 200 9 an d consume dnearl y afiall yea r o f RTC' s time an dresources . If th e 7 9 hour s that

wa s bille dby Mr . ICillee

n i s divide dove r

th e approximatel y 4 4 week s tha t wa s consume ddurin g th e appeal process , Mr . Killeen' s contributio n o f approximatel y 1. 8 hour s pe r wee k o n averag e appear s t o b e areasonable , i f

no t aconservativ e expenditur e o f time . Mr . Killeen' s wor

k ser^^e da n importan t functio n a s h e provide dvital informatio n t o RTC' s counse l tha t woul dhav e bee n otherwis e necessary t o researc h a t counsel' s highe r

hourl y rate . Clearly , th e hour s o f wor k performe db y Mr . Killee n save dat leas t a s man y hour s o f

time tha t coul dhav e been pu t

fort h b y RTC' s counsel . Th e ne t resul t bein g amuc h lowe r

awardsough t

throug h RTC' s EAJA11/03/201 0 10:1 8 FA X 202483514 2 FA A * DM S 0007/00 3

application . I L CONCLUSIO N Th e Agenc y ha s neve r

been in th e possessio n of

, o r presented , reasonabl e evidenc e an d argument s tha t

it s interpretatio n o f

1 4 CFR§61.57(d ) whic h require dapilo t t o perfor m.al l TASK S containe di n th e Instrumen t Ratin g Practici dTes t

Standards . (Th e Agenc y incorrecti y tiUe s thi s FAA documen t

th e Instrumen t

Proficienc y Test

Standard s in th e conclusio n o f it s response ; n o suc h documen t exist s becaus e ther e ar e n o suc h standards) . Th e fac t that Judg e Goodwi n foun dtha t

th e FAA' s interpretatio n o f th e regulatio n woul dthwart th e manifes t

inten t o f th e regulatio n i s an interpretatio n tha t canno t b e substantiall y justifie dunder an y circumstance . I f

th e FA A i s allowe dt o arbitraril y interpre t each regulatio n a s i t

plea.ses , ther e soo n woul db e n o standar dt o whic h user s o f th e aerospac e syste mcoul drel y an dth e resultan t breakdow n i n safet

y coul db e catastrophic . Accordingly , th e Agency' s interpretatio n i s not substantiall y j ustified . i n addition , th e fee s an dcost s include din th e iastan t applicatio n are reasonabl e base dupo n 1 4 CFR§ 14.05 . Th e cost s associate dwith Mr . Killee n resulte di n amor e efficient metho do f preparatio n t o defen dth e enforcement actio n an dsubsequentl y asignificanti y lowe r awjur dwa s requested . Base dupo n th e foregoing , th e fee s andcost s requeste darc appropriat e an dreasonabl e an dshoul db e awarde dth e Applicant . WHEREFORE , Responden t ask s thi s Court

t o gran t th e pendin g Applicatio n fo r fee s an dexpense s under

th e Equal Acces s t o Justic e Act . Dated : October

22 , 201 011/03/201 0 10:1 8 FA X 202483514 2 FA A • > DM S gl008/00 3

Charle s R . Barnett , U l BARNET T LA W OFFICES , P.C . 166 4 Moorlan dLan e Crystal Lake , Illinoi s 60014-298 5 (815)356-864 7 (815 ) 356-704 2 (FAX ) Respectfull y submitted ,

"Attorney fo

r Applican t Recurren t Trainin g Center , Inc .11/03/201 0 10:1 8 FA X 202483514 2 FA A • > DM S §1003/00 8

CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E Th e undersigne dcertifie s tha t th e foregoin g Repl y Brie f was serve dvi aU S Regula r Mai l a s follows : ORIGINA L AN D ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , SW . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-*3 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building

- Suite 2W100 0 FAX : 202-493-514 2 ON E COP Y Brian aMartino , Complainant' s Counse l Great Lake s Region , AGL-7 M Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 230 0 Las t Devo n Avenu e Des Plaines , I L 60018-469 6 T12L : 847-294-771 3 FAX ; 847-294-749 8 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo m 812-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Legal Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

>ii d Date dthi s 22" ° da

y o f October , 201 0 Charle s J Attorne y for

Responden t