SERVE D SEPTEMBE R10 , 201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . INTH EMATTE RO F RECURREN T TRAININ GCENTER , INC . FA A DOCKE T NO . (CP09GL0008 ) (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S NO . (FAA-2009-0971 ) 

# G SF i 

# EIVE D > 1 7 201 0 

## i G DOCKE T

; ^ -••-.:;• • ;



## - rpo o e n CA

> o o APPLICATIO N FO RA N AWAR D O FATTORNE Y FEE S AN D OTHE REXPENSE S PURSUAN T T O TH EEQUA LACCES S T O JUSTIC EAC T (EAJA ) COME S NO WApplicant , RECURREN T TRAININ GCENTER , INC. , b y an dthroug h it s counsel , BARNET T LA WOFFICES , P.C. , pursuan t t o 5 U.S.C . §50 4 an d1 4 C.F.R . §1 4 hereb y applie s fo r

attorne y fee s an dothe r

expense s incurre di nTh e Matte r o f Recurren t

Trainin g Center , FA A Docke t

No . (CP09FL0008) . Th e Initia l Decisio no f Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dC . Goodwi n ("Decision" ) wa s serve dAugus t 11 , 2010 . (Se e attache dExhibi t A , Decision ) Th e Decisio n foun dtha t th e allegation s o f

th e FA A ("Agency" ) wer e no t prove n an d th e Complain t

wa s dismissed . Accordin g t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.20(c)(4) , aninitia l decisio n i s considere dt o b e afinal decisio n i f n o petitio nfo r

reconsideratio ni s filedo nth e las t day o n whic hsuc hapetitio n coul db e filed. Th e FA A di dnot timel y file a nappea l withi n1 0 day s o f th e initieddecisio n (i.e . b y Augus t 23 , 2010) , at

whic htim e th e initia l decisio nbecam e final for purpose s o f

thi s application . Accordingly , thi s applicatio ni s timel y an dappropriat e i naccordanc e wit h1 4 C.F.R . §14.20(a ) a s i t i s filedn o late r

tha n3 0 day s after

th e final dispositio n o f th e proceedings . Th e followin g point s ar e mad e i nsupport o f thi s application : 1 . HISTOR Y O FTH EMATTE R 1 . O n Septembe r

21,2009 , Applicant , Recurren t Trainin g Centers , Inc . ("RTC" ) wa s advise dthroug haFina l Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalty tha t th e FA A propose dt o asses s acivi l penalty i n th e amoun t o f $3,850 . 2 . O n Octobe r

5,2009 , th e FA A receive dRTC' s timel y writte nreques t fo r ahearing . 3 . RT C hold s an dat

all time s mentione dherei nhel da nAi r Agenc y Certificat e Numbe r R9KS949 K

fo r a n approve dProvisiona l Pilo t Schoo l wit haSpecia l Preparatio n Course s ratin g issue db y th e FAA . 4 . RT C als o hold s an dat all time s mentione dherei nhel dTrainin g Cente r Certificat e Numbe r R9KX049 K

withTrainin g Specification s t o conduc t trainin g course s with respec t t o 1 4 C.F.R . 142 . 5 . O n o r abou t January 16,2008 , RT C certifie dtha t Mr . VanBerko msuccessfiill y complete da n Instrumen t

Proficienc y Chec k

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

Mr . Moor e successfiill y complete da nInstrumen t Proficienc y Check . Thes e IPC s wer e performe di naFligh t Trainin g Devic e ("FTD") , Leve l 1 , 3 , o r 6 . 6 . Circlin g Approache s an dLandin g fi-omaStraight-i no r Circlin g Approac hmaneuver s caimo t b e performe dwithaFligh t Trainin g Devic e ("FTD" ) Leve l 1 , 3 o r 6 . 7 . FT D Leve l 1, 3 an d6 ar e th e FTD s approve dfo r RTC . 8 . Th e IPC' s give n t o bothpilot s di dno t tes t for Landin g fi-omaStraight-i no r Circlin g Approac hmaneuvers . 9 . Th e Complainan t

asserte dtha t

anIP C mus t

tes t fo r al l th e Instrumen t

Ratin g Practica l Tes t Standard s ("PTS") . Th e PT S include s Landin g fro maStraight-i nan dCirclin g Approac hmaneuvers . 10 . Th e Agenc y argue dtha t RT C committe dthre e violation s for th e FAR's : a . §141.41(b)(3) , b . §141.83(a)(l)an d c . $61.57(d )11 . RT C argue dtha t th e languag e o f

61.57(d ) i s clear

an dunambiguou s o nit s fac e an d that a n IP C nee donl y includ e " arepresentativ e numbe r o f tasks" . 12 . Th e Court

foun dtha t

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 (Se e attache dExhibi t A , Decision , I . Para . 7) . 13 . Th e Court

state di n it s decisio ntha t all allegation s hinge dupo na nevaluatio no f th e languag e o f

1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d) . (Se e attache dExhibi t A , Decision , III . Para. . 2 ) 14 . Th e Court

fiirther state di nit s decisio ntha t th e prope r

readin g o f

1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d ) require s accomplishmen t o f a"representativ e number " o f PT S task s - not

all o f them , an dno t necessaril y th e one s name di nth e PT S chart . (Se e attache dExhibi t A , Decision , III . Para . 4 ) 15 . Th 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 nwoul dthu s b e thwarted . (Se e attache d Exhibi t A , Decision , III . Para . 4 ) 16 . Th e Court

fiirther state dtha t

th e Agenc y reliedo nstatement s fi-omth e PT S whic hd o no t hav e th e forc e o f

law . Becaus e th e PT S lack s lega l effect , i t ma y not impose dutie s no t compelle db y th e plai nword s o f 1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d) . (Se e attache dExhibi t A , Decision , II I Para . 6 ) 17 . Moreover , th e Court

stated , 1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d ) require s n o explainin g o r supplementatio n b y 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 point . (Se e attache dExhibi t A , Decision , II I Para . 7 ) 18 . Lastly , th e Court

decide dtha t

th e allegation s o f

th e Complain t

wer e no t prove n an d th e Complian t

i s "hereb y dismissed" . (Se e attache dExhibi t A , Decision , II I Para . 8 )

II . APPLICAN T I S TH EPREVAILIN GPART Y Th e attache dDecisio n (Exhibi t A ) an dPomt s 1 2 an d1 4 thru 1 8 above clearl y establis h tha t th e Applican t

i s th e prevailin g party . III . TH EPOSITIO N O FTH EFA A WA S NO T SUBSTANTIALL Y JUSTIFIE D Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . §14.04 , th e applican t point s out

tha t th e positio no f

th e Agenc y wa s not substantiall y justifie da s indicate db y point s 1 4 thru 1 7 above . Th e Agenc y wa s no t substantiall yjustifie di n attemptin g t o discer n o r clarif y th e meanin g o f

1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d ) b y referenc e t o othe r regulations , directive s an dinterpretations . Th e Co\u l rejecte dan y suc hassertions . Th e Court als o state dtha t

th e operativ e meanin g o f 1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d ) wa s clear an dunambiguous . (Se e attache dOrder , III . Para . 4 ) I t i s apparen t

then , tha t

th e FA A kne w o r

shoul dhav e know n tha t 1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d ) wa s clear o nit s face . Accordingly , th e positio no f th e Agency , tha t RT C wa s require dt o d o mor e tha n th e requirement s o f th e regulations , wa s no t

substantiall y justified . IV . RT C I S A "PARTY " WIT H A NE T WORT H NO T EXCEEDIN G $ 7 MILLIO N A T TH EINITL4TIO NO FTHES EPROCEEDINGS . Pursuan t tol 4 C.F.R . §14.03 , RT C i s a"party " a s define di n5 U.S.C . 504(b)(1)(B ) an d5 U.S.C . 551(3) . Further , pxorsuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . §14.11 , RT C i s acorporatio nemployin g les s tha n 50 0 employee s wit hane t wortho f les s tha n$ 7 millio nat

th e initiatio no f

thes e proceedings . RT C i s i n th e busines s o f providin g trainin g t o pilot s mflight trainin g device s an dat

th e initiatio no f

thes e proceeding s engage dapproximatel y 1 9 employees . I nth e one-year perio d prio r t o th e dat e o n whic hthi s proceedin g wa s initiated , th e Applican t di dnot transfe r an y asset s o r incu r an y obligation s tha t

reduce dth e ne t

wort ho f th e Applican t

belo w th e applicabl e ne t worthceiling . A detaile dexhibi t

showin g th e ne t

wortho f th e Applican t

at th e mitiatio no f

thes e proceeding s i s attached . (Se e Exhibi t B. ) V . TOTA LFEE S AN D COST S FO RWHIC H A NAWAR D I S SOUGHT : $19,416.8 0

4Documentatio n o f attorne y fee s pai do r

payabl e t o Charle s R . Bamett , II I alon g wit h othe r expense s i s attached . (Se e Exhibi t C. ) Pursuan t

tol 4 C.F.R . §14.05(c) , th e followin g shal l b e considere di n determinin g th e reasonablenes s o f th e fee s sough t

for a nattorney : 1 . Charles R . Bamett , II I a s th e owne r o f Bamet t La w Offices , P.C . i s i nprivat e practic e an dconcentrate s hi s practic e i n aviatio nlaw . Hi s customar y fe e fo r suc hservice s i s $20 0 pe r hour . 2 . Th e prevailin g rat e fo r similar service s i nth e community i nwhic hBamet t La w Offices , P.C . i s locate di s substantiate db y th e attache daffidavit s fromtw o othe r attorney s wh o als o practic e aviatio n la w i n th e sam e commxmity . (Se e attache daffidavit s at Exhibit s D an dE ) 3 . Th e tim e actuall y spen t i n representatio no f

RT C i s documente di nth e attache d Exhibi t C . 4 . Th e tim e spen t

o n thi s matte r

wa s reasonabl e i nligh t

o f th e difficulty o r

complexit y o f th e issue s i n th e proceeding ; an d 5 . Suc hothe r

factor s a s ma y bea r

o nth e valu e o f

th e service s provide dwoul dinclud e Mr . Bamett' s extensiv e backgroun di n aviation , whic hinclude s ove r 10,00 0 flight

hour s logge da s a n Airlin e Transport

Pilo t an daMaster s Degre e i nAeronautica l Scienc e fromEmbry Riddl e Aeronautica l University . Mr . Bamet t i s als o apane l attome y o f th e Aircraf

t Owner s an dPilot s Associatio n Lega l Service s Pla n an da s suc hha s receive dspecifi c trainin g an deducatio n regardin g representatio n o f client s i nmatter s concernin g th e FAA . Documentatio n o f

fee s pai do r

payabl e t o Joh nM . Killee ni s attached . (Se e Exhibi t F) . Pursuan t tol 4 C.F.R . § 14.05(c) , th e followin g shal l b e considere di ndeterminin g th e reasonablenes s o f

th e fee s sough t

fo r a nagent :Joh n M . Killee n i s th e Presiden t o f RT C an dprovide dresearc han danalysi s o f FA A publications , regulation s an dothe r controllin g guidanc e i nthi s matter . Hi s customary fe e for suc hservice s i s $10 2 pe r

hour . 2 . Th e tim e actuall y spen t i n researc han danalysi s o f issue s involvin g thi s matte r i s dociraiente di n th e attache dExhibi t F ; an d 4 . Th e tim e spen t

o n thi s matte r

wa s reasonabl e i nligh t

o f th e difficult

y o r complexit y o f th e issue s i n th e proceeding . Al l fee s requeste dar e fo r work performe dafter

th e issuanc e o f

th e complaint . VI . CONCLUSIO N Fo r al l o f th e foregoin g reasons , thi s Court shoul dfindtha t

th e Applican t

i s th e prevailin g party i nthi s matter , tha t

th e Applican t

meet s th e economi c threshol dqualificatio ncriteri ao f th e EAJA , tha t

a n attome y clien t

relationshi p exist s an dtha t attomey s fee s an dothe r

expense s wer e incurred , an dtha t

th e Agenc y (FAA ) wa s no t substantiall y justifie di nth e litigatio nwhic hle dt o thi s appea l whe n i t

faile dt o properl y follo w th e plai nlanguag e o f 1 4 CF R§67.51(d ) i napplyin g th e term s "representativ e numbe r o f tasks " whe nconsiderin g wha t shoul drequire do f

th e Applican t t o conduc t

Instrumen t

Proficienc y Check s i naFligh t Trainin g Device . Subsequently , th e awar do f

fee s i s warrante di n th e interest s o f justice . WHEREFORE , th e Court shoul dorde r

th e Agenc y t o pa y t o tiie Applicant , $19,416.80 , th e amoun t requeste di n thi s application .• CERTIFICAT EO FVERIFICATIO N

Under penalt y of perjur y a s provide db y la

w th e undersigne dcertifie s tha t th e informatio nset fort hinthi s APPLICATIO N FORANAWARD O FATTORIVE Y FEE S AND OTHER EXPENSE S PURSUAN T T O TH EEQUALACCES S T O JUSTIC EAC T (EAJA ) ar e uaie and correct , excep t

a s to matter s therei n state dto b e oninformatio nandbelie f anda s to suc hmatter s th e undersigne dcertifie s a s aforesai dtha t he veril y believe s the same to b e true .

Date dthi s ' ^ da

y of September , 2010 . John.. ^ Presiden t Recurrent Trainin g Center 315SDunla p Savoy , I L6187 4Lis t o f Attache dExhibit s Exhibi t Numbe r A B

D E F Docimien t Initia l Decisio no f

Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dC . Goodwi n Ne t Wort hStatemen t

o f Recurren t Trainin g Cente r Attome y Fee s o f Charle s R . Bamett , II I Affidavi t o f Philli p A . Prossnitz , Esq . Affidavi t o f Joh nScott

Hoff , Esq . Invoice s o f

Joh nM . Killee n Numbe r o f Page s

2 1 1 2 Dated : Septembe r

10,201 0 Respectfiill y submitted .

Charle s R . Bamett , m BARNET T LA WOFFICES , P.C . 166 4 Moorlan dLan e Crysta l Lake , Illinoi s 60014-298 5 (815)356-864 7 (815 ) 356-704 2 (FAX ) ' Attomey/^ r y^plican t Recurren t Trainin g Center , Inc .CERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E

Th e undersigne dcertifie s tha t th e foregoin g Repl y Brie f wa s serve dvi aU S Regular Mai l a s follows : ORIGINA LAN D ON ECOP 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 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W100 0 FAX : 202-493-514 2 ON ECOP Y Brian aMartino , Complainant' s 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 Plaines , I L60018-469 6 TEL : 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 mE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attomey-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6 Date dthi s 10 * da y o f

September , 2010 . 5harle s Rf Ba6e i Attome y fo r

Applican t

### SERVE D AUGUS T 11,201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION .

Complainant , V . RECURREN TTRAININ G CENTER , INC .

Respondent . FA ADocke t No . CP09GL000 8 (Civi l Penalt yAction ) DM S No . FAA-2009-097 1

INITIA L DECISIO N O F ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDG E RICHAR D C . GOODWI N Found : Th e allegvtioii s wm e ma t proven . Th e Comj^bin t

wil l b e dismissed . I . 

### Backgroun d Responden t Recurren t Trainin g Center , Inc . ("Respondent " o r"RTC" ) i s a n Ai rAgenc ycertificate d fo ra n approve d Provisiona l Pilo t Schoo l ynt h a Specia l Preparatio n Course s rating , i t als o held , durin g th e perio d unde rreview , a Trainin g Cente rCertificat e wit h Trainin g Specification s t o conduc t trainin g course s unde r1 4 C.F.R . §142 . RT C an d th e Complainant , th e Federa l Aviatio n AdministFatio n ("Complainant, " TAA. " o r"th e agency" ) agre e o n th e fad s underlyin g th e charge s i n th e Complain t The ysutmiitted . pe rm yorder , a n Agree d Upo n StEifemen t o f Fact s ("StErtemen t o f Fads') . I n th e parties ' Statemen t o f Fads , date d Apri l 23,201 0 (Complainant' s Exhibi t A-1) , the yconcu rtha t RT C certifie d tha t tw o pilots , VanBerko m an d Moone , ha d sucoessfiiil ycomplete d Instrumen t Proficienc yCheck s ("IPC") , o n Januar y16 , 2008 , an d Decemtie r17 , 2007 , respectively . Th e IPC s v/er e performe d i n a Fligh t Train«i g Devfc e ("FTP" ) Leve l 1 , 3 , o r6 . Thos e ar e th e FTD s approve d ibrRtC.t^ ^ , 3 o r6 rria yb e use d fo rdrdin g approache s o rlandin g fro m a straight-i n o rdrdin g approac h maneuvers . Th e IPC s give n t o RTC' s pik>t s dk l no t test fo rtiiese skills . EXmBTT AAfte rthi s poin t th e FA Aan d RT C par t ways . Complainan t assert s tfia t a n IP C mus t test fo ral l th e Instrumen t Ratin g Practica l Tes t Standard s ("PTS") . Th e PT S indude s drdin g approache s an d landin g fro m a straigfrt-i n o rcirdin g approad i maneuvers . A s stated , Respondent s approve d FTD s wer e no t permitte d t o tes t fo rthes e abilitie s an d di d no t Becaus e R^sonden t certifie d tiia t th e pilot s successfull ycomplete d thei rrespectiv e IPC s bu t faile d t o tes t fo rth e describe d skills , th e agenc yargue s tha t RT C committe d thre e vrolatton s o f th e FARs : 1 ) sectio n 141.41(b)(3) , whic h require s tha t eac h FT D use d to obtai n fligh t trainin g oedi t hav e Administrato r approval ; 2 ) sectio n 141.83(a)(1) , obligatin g eac h prov^iona l pilo t schoo l t o compl ywit h it s trainihg'courge ; arK l 3 ) sectio n 61.57(d) , whic h mandate s tha t a n IP C mus t indud e " a representativ e numt)e ro f tast e require d b yth e instrumen t ratin g practica l test " Th e agenc yask s fo ra civi l penalt yunde r4 9 U.S.C . §4630 1 o f $3,850 . Responden t counter s tha t th e IPC s i t conducte d wer e complet e an d confor m to FA R requirements . Th e languag e o f sectio n 61.57(d ) mean s tha t a n IP C nee d no t indud e ever yconceivabl e tesk, i t states . RT C contend s tha t i t committe d n o vtolation . Bu t eve n i f violation s ar e found, Resporujen t argues , it s complian t attitud e arK

) th e mootnes s o f tti e centra l question ^ compe l th e condusto n tiiat rK

> dvi l penalt yi s warranted . Pursuan t to m yOrde ro n Motion s o f Ajpn\ 5 , 201 0 - whic h denie d Respondent s Motio n forDecisto n an d Complainant s response to sam e an d Complainant s ow n Motio n forDedski n —th e partie s file d brief s o n th e issue s presented . I fin d tha t ther e ar e n o genuin e issue s o f materia l fa d an d tha t th e mattftpmia yhft/ieiAtetLiMa-qifftgHnngo f law . Th e cas e vwl l t) e decided_b yInitia l Dedsto n pursuan t to 1 4 C.F.R . §13,20 1 e t seq. ^ II . Argument s Bot h partie s zer o i n o n languag e i n §61.57(d ) describin g wha t a pilo t mus t d o to qualif yto (^}erat e urule rIF R Onstrumen t fligtt t rute ) o rless-4harv-minimu m VF R (visua l flight rule ) conditions . A s noted , flie regulatio n mandate s tiia t a pilo t mus t pas s a n IP C "cons»tir ^ o f a repr^^ntativ e numtie ro f task s require d b yth e instrumen t rab'n g practica l test. " Th e agenc yassert s ttia t th e quote d languag e incorporate s b yit s term s "instrumen t ratin g practica l test" int o th e regulaljon . Tfi e instrumen t ratin g

' Se e n . 4 , p . 4 . * Complainant

filedanOpenin g Brie f

("Comp LBr.'O , Responden

t sulnaitte daReply Brie f

("Re^ . Br.") , andbecaus e di e burden o f

proo f i s o n di e agency , Compl^n t wa s pennitte dto . an ddid , file aRespons e t o Respondent' s Reply Brie f

CX^omp LReply Br.") . Th e partie s attadiiedediibit s t o thei r briefe . Complainant' s exhibit s b^i n wid i '^A " followedb y th e exhibit number , an dRespomtent' s exhibit s b^ n widi^R. "practica l tes t i n turn , references a n FA Adirectiv e conteinin g th e content s o f tha t

tes t Th e directiv e i s entitie d "Th e Instrumen t Ratin g Practica l Tes t Standards " ("PTS") . Th e PT S state s tha t adherenc e t o th e regulation s an d to itsel f "i s mandator yforevaluatio n o f instrumen t pilo t applicants. " (FAA-S-8081-4D) . Th e PT S state s furthe rtha t "a t a minimum , th e applican t mus t demonstrat e th e ability ; t o perfor m th e task s liste d i n tiie abov e char T- whic h task s includ e th e reference d skill s tha t RT C admittedl ydi d no t tes t Th e "representativ e tasks" descrit}e d i n tiie regulations . Complainan t condudes , mus t indud e th e skill s liste d i n th e PT S diar t (Compl . Br. , pp . 3-5) . Sinc e th e approac h an d maneuver s descrit>e d canno t b e teste d i n RTC' s autiiorize d FTDs , RTC , th e agenc ystates , mus t b e found i n violatio n o f §61.57(d) . Violatio n o f th e othe rregulation s charge d i n tii e Complain t mus t fottow. Respondent , fiomin g i n o n tiie sam e regulator ylanguage , counter s tha t th e phras e " a representative numt>e ro f tasks ' i s dea ran d unambiguous , i t mean s exactl ywha t i t says : t o successfull ycomplet e a n IPC , a representativ e numbe ro f tasks fro m fti e PT S mus t t>e accomplisfied . Complainant s position , i t argues , effiectivel yexdse s tfi e quote d languag e fro m th e regulatio n —an d b y doin g so , vtoiate s establisfie d rule s o f constructio n (Resp . Br. , p . 5) . Word s ar e to b e interprete d i n tfieircommo n an d ordinar ymeanings . Responden t states ; appl^n g tha t prindpl e her e compel s tiie condusto n tfia t Responden t wa s unde r n o obligatio n to tes t tii e pitot s fo reac h an d ever ymaneuve rliste d an d descrik>e d i n tii e PT S (Resp . Br. , p . 8) . tt ^ tru e tha t th e approach ^ an d maneuver s tha t tiie PT S require s a n appKican t to perfor m indud e thos e whos e acknowledge d omissio n form tiie basi s fo rComplainant s diarges . Bu t a comman d o f th e PT S canno t trum p th e languag e o f th e regulatio n itself . RT C states . lit - Decisio n I find an d condud e tha t Responden t committe d n o violations . Th e Comptain t wil l t>e dismesed . Tfi e startin g poin t o f m yanaly ^ mus t b e a n evaluatio n o f th e languag e o f 1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d) , Fo ri t i s upo n th e questio n o f whethe rResponden t complie d \mt h thi s regulatio n tha t al l allegatior ^ hinge . A s noted , th e ke y proviskH i o f thi s regulatio n state s tha t a n IP C mus t indud e " a representativ e numt>e ro f tasks" require d b ytfi e instrumen t ratin g practica l test . i n interpretin g a regulation , th e dedsfonmake rk)ok s a t it s plai n languag e an d analyze s fti e term s use d i n accordanc e wit h thei rcommon , ordinar y meaning . Whela n v . U.S. . 52 9 F.2 d 1000,1002-0 3 (Ct.CI . 1976) . Regulation s als o shou M t> e construe d s o ttia t i f a t al l possible , n o wor d o rclaus e i s rendere d superfluous . Canpri s o f constructio n stat e tha t al t regulator ylariguag e b e give n effec t iMomfe s V . Sobfec/a d Espafio l d e AuxiB o Mutu o yEtenefrcen&a , 52 4 F.2 d 5 4 ( 1 Cir . 2008) .

### Th e operativ e languag e of thi s regulatio n i s clea r

an dunambiguous . "Representative " in thi s contex t mean s "exemplar y of

other s i n th e sam e class ; typical " (Th e Ne w America n Heritag e Dictionary o f tiie Englis hLanguage) . State danothe r

way , sectio n 61,57(d ) require s IPC s t o includ e tasks typica l o f thos e require db y th e instrumen t ratin g practica l tes t

N o more , n o less . Tfi e . ^ regulatio n doe s no t

nam e o r descriti e particular

test s whic hmus t

b e acceptabl y performe dfor

successfu l IP S completion . Eve n i f (a s contende db y th e agency ) th e PT S i s incorporate dint o §61.57(d) . tiie regulation' s plai n languag e controls . Wfie nth e word s of

aregulatio n ar e unambiguous , th e regulatio n governs ; judicia l inquir y i s a t a n end . Teso mHawai i Corp . v . U.S. , 40 5 F.S" ^ 1339,134 7 (Fed.Cir . 2005) . A s such , sectio n 61.57(d) . propert y read, require s accomplishmen t o f a "representativ e number * o f PT S tasl ^ -

^ no t al l o f tiiem. an dno t

nec^saril y th e one s name din th e i^T S char t Th e interpretatio n Complainan t urges , b y contras t wouk i effectivel y delet e tfi e quote dphrase . Th e manifes t inten t of th e regulatio n woul db e thu s thwarted . Thi s outcom e canno t b e accepted . Hfa dComplainan t

bee n abl e t o sho w tha t

tfi e tasks Responden t

tailedt o tes t fo r —drdin g ar^roadie s o r landin g fro mastraigfit-i n o r drdin g approac h maneuver s —wer e anecessar y par t o f th e "repr^^ntativ e numbe r of tasks" require db y tfi e instrumen t ratin g practica l tes t

i t woukI hav e prevailed . Bu t i t canno t d o so . Thu s it s proo f

tails. Comptainant s contrar y argument s d o no t sway . Th e PT S statemen t upo n whic hit s o fieavit y relies, requirin g a n IP C applican t t o performal l th e tasks liste d inadiar t ttierein. doe s no t

fi»v e th e force o f

law . tt i s containe din aFA

A documen t

FAA-S-8081-4D , whk: hwa s no t adopte dwit

hth e protection s of notice-andl-commen t

rulemakin g unde r

th e Administrativ e Procedur e A d("APA") . -Tfi e documefit¥ras-notput>lislied-iii.the-Federa l l3eg^teL(se e 5-jy-S.C. , §552(a)(1)(D)) . trackin g lega l effect , i t ma y no t impos e dutie s no t

compelle db y th e plai n word s o f

§61.57(d).= ' Moreover , a s aregulatio n understoo dthroug hit s owndea r words , §61.57(d ) require s n o explainin g o r supplementatio n b y referenc e to extrinsi c documents . A s such , th e argument s o f Complainan t

(an dRespondent ) whic h attemp t to dtece mo r

darif y tfi e regulation' s meanin g b y referenc e t o otiie r regulations , directives , an dinterpretation s ar e t>esid e tiie poin t Tfi e parties ' assertion s o f

thi s natur e ar e rej€H::ted. ^

^ Compbmnn t

note s ftta t th e FAA' s Fli ^ Standard s Infmmation Managemea t System(^FSIMS' O handbook (FAA Orde r

8900.1 X cite di ^ Respondent t o suppor t it s argument

tha t a n IPC nee dno t

tes t for ever y ta ^ liste di ndi e PTS , consider B itself"guidance. " It

expressly state s dur

t "[sjhoul dth e guidanc e i

n dii s Olde r conflic t witi x 1 4 CFR , 1 4 CF

Rtake s precedence... " (Gompl . Repl y Br. , p . 2 ; se e als o Resp . Br. , p . 4n.3) . Wha

t i s goo dfin-the goose , ofcoiHse , i s goo dfor th e gand«- . * Reqacmden

t als o point s ootdiatlh e tangpa ^ o f §61.57(d) wa s dnat^e deffective October 20,200 9 - afte

r th e event s o f

dii s case—to require a

n IPCt o con^sto f

"di e area s o f

operatio n an dinstrument

task s requited " b y di e PT S (7 4 Fed.Rje«.^G500,4251 8 (Ai^us t 21,2009)) . ftasscatsdiatdiisdiangerefaifijrces it s cootentio ndntdi e earlier §61.S7(d) iMignagF

t embrace da

n exenqilia

y number o f tasks , an dno t

al l listed indi e PT S chart . Th e change , i t states , woul dno t

hav e bee n necessar

y hadth e requirenient

t o complet

e allTh e allegation s o f th e Complain t wer e no t proven . Th e Complain t i s

hereb ydismissed. ^

tichar d C . Goodwi n U.S . Administrativ e ta wJudg e Attachmen t —Servk: e Usi .

PT S tasks bee nenshrine di ndi e earlie r version . Resp . Br. , p . 6 . Complainan t counter s tha t

th e FA A describe s th e chang e a s a"clarification' ' (7 4 Fed-R^. . p . 42519 X suggestin g dier^ y dia t i t i s no t substantiv e (Compl . Br. , p . 6) . Resolvin g thi s argomon t i s unnecessar y i nvie w o f m y decision , an dI expres s n o vie w o ni t ' Thi s decisio nmi ^ b e iqjpeale dt o di e Administrato r o f th e FAA , Th e notic e o f appea l mus t

confor mt o section s 13.210,13.211(e ) an d13.23 3 o f di e Rule s o f

Practice , whic hrequir e tha t anotic e o f

^pea i I ) b e file dno t lato r dia n1 0 day s (plu s a nadditiona l fiv e day s i f mailed ) fro mdi e servic e dat e o f dii s decision , an d2 ) b e perfecte dwit hawritte nbrie f w memorandu mno t

late r dia nS O d^ s (plu s a nadditiona l five , i f mail ^ fro mdi e servic e dat e o f dii s decisicm . Th e notic e o f appea l an dbrie f

o r memorandu mmus t

eidie r b e a ) maOe dt o th e Fedoa l Aviatio nAdministoation , 80 0 Ind^iend^ic e Avenue , S . W. , Washington , D C 20591 , Attn : Hearin g Dodce t iQlcak, AqC-430 , Wilbu r WiJghtJBuildhig—Suit e 2W1000ror-b ) delivere d personall y o r

vi aexpedite dcourie r

servic e t o th e Federa l Aviatio nAdministration , 60 0 Indepoidenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r

Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 , Washmgton , D.C . 20591 , Attn : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . A cop y o f di e notic e o f

appea l an dbrie f

o r memorandu mals o mus t b e sen t t o agenc y cram.cA l .^rvic e iipo nth e presidin e jodg e i s optional .FA A Docke t No . CP09GL000 8 (Civi l Peaoalt

y Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Indep^idenc e AVCTIUC , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC~43 0 WUbur Wrigh t Bmlding—Suit e 2W1000 ^

ON ECOP Y Charle s R . Bamett , HI , Respondent' s Counse l 166 4 Moorlan dLan e Crysta l Lake , I L60014-298 5 TEL : 815-356-864 7 FAX : 815-356-704 2 Brian aMorgan , Conqtlainant' s 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 Plaines , I L60018-469 6 TEL : 847-294-731 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 mE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s by U.S . Nfoil . Fo r servic e i n peno n o r

by expedrtedcourier , us e th e following addres : Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 60 0 b&peodenc e Avenne , S.W. , Wilbu r Wiig ^ Building—Suite 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attoition : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .Recurren t Trainin g Cente r Ne t Wort h Sep t 1 , 201 0 Pag e 1 o f 1 Printe d 9/7/1 0 Asset s Cas h Ban k On e Saving s Buse ySaving s Payrol l Checkin g Checkin g Pocke t Mone y Cas h Bo x Tota l Cas h Redevable s Account s Recv b Tota l Redevable s Propert y Simulator s AS TSimulato r Garmi n Traine r Fumitur e Vide o Equipmen t Tape s Compute r VIT s Trainin g Cours e Aircraf t System s Cours e Cop yMachin e Tool s Tota l Propert y Tota l Asset s Liability s Loa n t o Joh n Tota l Liability s 48.13 0 3,29 7 94 8 1.92 6 10 2 24.35 1 78,75 3 1,60 0 1,60 0 118,79 9 3.53 2 54.82 0 27.85 6 7,67 4 71.80 1 38,06 7 27,83 5 8,68 3 5 Z 359,12 4 437,47 7 61.34 6 61.346 ) NE TWORT H $376,53 1



### EXHIBI T B 

# Joh n

Killee n Digitall ysigne d b y Joh n Killee n DN : cn=Joh n Killeen , o=RTC , ou=President , email=john@rtcpilo t com , c=U S Date : 2010.09.07 11:21:35-05'00 '

### EXHIBI T C ANALYSIS OFATTORNE Y FEE S PAI

D O RPAYABL

ETO CHARLES R . BARNETT , III TO DEFEN

D RECURREN

T TRAININGCENTER , IN C AGAINS T CHARGES THA T IT ALLEGEDL

Y VIOLAT

E Dat e Descriptio n 10/8/200 9 Revie wComplain t an d Draf t Answer . 10/16/200 9 Researc h cas e la w 10/24/200 9 Draf t Motio n t o Dismis s 10/29/200 9 Continu e draf t o f Motio n t o Dismis s 10/31/200 9 Revie wProcedura l Order . Draf t Pleadings . 1 1 /4/200 9 Finaliz e Motio n t o Dismis s 11/5/200 9 Revis e MTD . Serv e vi a Certifie d Mai l 11/19/200 9 Revie wFAA' s Respons e t o MTD . Te l con f wit h cleint .

Tel e con f wit h FAA 11/25/200 9 Telephon e conferenc e wit h FAA . Tel . con f wit h client . 12/9/200 9 Revie wCour t Orde rr e MTD . Draf t pleading s 12/15/200 9 Revie wan d serv e Answer . 12/17/200 9 Te l con f wit h client . Te l con f wit h FAA . Draf t discover y 12/28//200 9 Draf t pleadings . Te l con f wit h FAA . Fil e motion . 1/4/201 0 Revie wOrder . Te l con f wit h client . 1/23/201 0 Draf t discovery . 2/12/201 0 Revie wan d serv e d iscovery . 2/22/201 0 Te l con f wit h client . Te l con f wit h F/>^ . Draf t discovery . 3/2/201 0 Te l con f wit h client . 3/9/201 0 Revie wdiscoveryresponses . Revie wFA Adiscover y

requests . 3/15/201 0 Te l con f wit h client . 3/16/201 0 Draf t Motio n fo rDecision . Te l con f wit h client . 3/18/201 0 Revis e Motio n fo rDecision . 3/19/201 0 Revis e Motio n fo rDecision . 3/22/201 0 Finaliz e an d serv e Motio n fo rDecision . 3/24/201 0 Te l con f wit h client . 4/7/201 0 Te l con f wit h client . Draf t discovery 4/13/201 0 Revie wstatemen t o f facts . 5/6/201 0 Revie wFAA' s Openin g Brief . 5/7/201 0 Te l con f wit h client . Revie whistoryo f FA R 61.57(d )

change s 5/13/201 0 Revie wissue s fo rrepl yt o openini g brief . 5/18/201 0 Draf t repl ybrief . 5/19/201 0 Continu e draf t o f Repl ybrief . 5/20/201 0 Continu e draf t o f Repl ybrief . 5/2 1 /201 0 Finaliz e an d serv e Repl ybrief . 6/2/201 0 Revie wFAA' s Respons e t o Repl ybrief . Te l con f wit h

cleint . 8/13/201 0 Revie wintia l decision . Te l con f wit h client . 8/24/201 0 Revie wEAJ Aissues . Te l con f wit h client . Hour s 2. 8 0. 6 1. 5 1. 1 2. 4 1. 0 2. 5 1. 1 0. 5 2. 0 0. 5 2. 0 1. 3 0. 3 1. 5 0. 5 0. 3 1. 0 0. 3 0. 3 1. 2 1. 5 1. 2 3. 0 0. 5 2. 0 0. 3 0. 7 1. 0 0. 5 0. 5 3. 3 1. 5 0. 5 1. 2 0. 5 1. 0 Amoun t

$560.0 0 $120.0 0 $300.0 0 $220.0 0 $480.0 0 $200.0 0 $500.0 0 $220.0 0 $100.0 0 $400.0 0 $100.0 0 $400.0 0 $260.0 0 $60.0 0 $300.0 0 $100.0 0 $60.0 0 $200.0 0 $60.0 0 $60.0 0 $240.0 0 $300.0 0 $240.0 0 $600.0 0 $100.0 0 $400.0 0 $60.0 0 $140.0 0 $200.0 0 $100.0 0 $100.0 0 $660.0 0 $300.0 0 $100.0 0 $240.0 0 $100.0 0 $200.0 08/31/201 0

9/3/201 0 9/4/201 0 9/6/201 0 9/7/201 0 9/8/201 0 9/9/201 0 Tota l Researc h Fee s Te l con f wit h client . Te l con f r e EAJ Aissues .

EAJ Aresearc h Revie wEAJ Astatutes . Draf t pleadings . Te l con f wit h client . Draf t pleadings , affidavit s an d cos t details . Draf t pleadings , affidavit s an d cos t details . Tota l Att yFee s Charle s R . Bamett , II I @ $200.00/h r

Joh n Killee n @ $102.00/h r 0. 5 0. 7 0. 5 2. 9 0. 5 4 1 3. 0 56. 1 79. 2 $100.0 0

$140.0 0 $100.0 0 $580.0 0 $100.0 0 $820.0 0 $600.0 0 $11,220.0 0 $8,078.0 0 Tota l Expense s U S Postag e fo rCertifie d Mai l $118.8 0

Gran d Tota l $19,416.8 0U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISRATIO N AFFIADVI T O FATTORNE Y FEE S HAVIN GCOM Ebefor e th e undersigne dNotar y dul y authorize dt o administe r oaths , PHILI PA . PROSSNITZ , di dstat e unde r oat hafte r

bein g properl y sworn , tha t th e followin g statement s ar e tru e an daccurate . 1 . I a mlicense dt o practic e la w i nth e Stat e o f Illinois . 2 . A s apar t

o f m y privat e practice , I practic e aviatio nla w whic hinclude s representin g client s i n matter s a s aresul t o f a nFA A Enforcemen t

Action . 3 . M y customar y rat e fo r thi s typ e o f

wor k i s $250.0 0 pe r

hour . 4 . I f calle dt o testif

y a s t o th e above-state dinformation , m y testimon y woul db e th e same . AFFIAN T FURTHE RSAYET H NAUGH T Thi s 1 da y o f

September , 2010 .

PrtfiK PA . PRTOSSNIT Z

( County o f McHenr y Stat e o f Illinoi s —771 .

Swor n befor e m e thi s /

da y o f September , 2010 .

Notar y Publi c ^- ^ M y Commissio n Expires : ^St-^ ^

0^-CR'-l 3 1 '*''*yP«*'fc-St«eofimnol s jMyComitiissky

i Expires Fe

b 09,201 3 EXHIBI T DU^ . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO NADMINISRATIO N AFFIADVI T O FAITORNE Y FEE S HAVIN GCOM Ebefore th e undersigne dNotary dul y authorize dt o administe r oaths . JOH N SCOT T HOFF , di dstat e unde r oat hafter bein g properl y sworn , that th e followin g statement s are tru e an daccurate . 1 . I a mlicense dt o practic e law inth e Stat e o f Illinois . 2 . A s apart

o f my privat e practice . I practic e aviatio nlaw whic hinclude s representin g client s i n matter s a s aresul t o f a nFAA Enforcemen t

.Action . 3 . My customar\ ' rat e fo r thi s t\'p e o f

wor k i s $20 0 pe r

hour . 4 . I f calle dt o testif

y a s t o th e above-state dinformation , my testimon y woul db e th e same . AFFIAN T FURTHE RSAYET H NAUGH T Thi s T davof^'^^' ^ .2010 . / ' 1 . / . • —\' . / { JOH N ^COT T HOF F Count)'o f Coo k State o f Illinoi s Swor n before m e thi s 1 davo f c=^^ - , .2010 .

^ ^ 

# 1 / ^ Notary Publi c ^ My Commissio n Expires : EXHIBI T EResearc h an d Analysis , Joh n M . Killee n 81 2 Arends , Rantoul , II6186 6 Bamet t La wOffice s 166 4 Moorlan d Ln . Crysta l Lake , II6001 4 Dat e Descripto n FA AEnforcemen t RT C 61.57(d) . 141.4 1 141.83(a)(1 ) Hour s 6. 5 3. 0 2. 2 4. 5 4. 0 1. 0 n IP C 7. 5 2. 5 5. 5 7. 0 6. 3 0. 5 4. 5 (b)(3 ) Amoun t

663.0 0 306.0 0 224.4 0 459.0 0 408.0 0 102.0 0 765.0 0 255.0 0 561.0 0 714.0 0 642.6 0 51.0 0 459.0 0 10/24/200 9 10/26/200 9 10/30/200 9 11/8/200 9 11/9/200 9 11/20/200 9 11/21/200 9 11/27/200 9 11/28/200 9 12/3/200 9 12/6/200 9 12/15/200 9 12/17/200 9 Researc h FA Awe b sit e fo rIP C inf o Researc h Federa l Registe rfo rNPR M fo r199 6 Researc h 1 4 CF R 6 1 fo rsimila ruse s Researc h al l prio rFT S document s Continu e researc h an d compariso n o f PT S Researc h FA

AIP C Guidanc e boo k Searc h an d revie wFAAorder s 870 0 fo rhistoryo n IP C Researc h contraryopinion s t o IP C Researc h FAAAdvisoryCircular s fo rIP C Researc h FAAFSIM S Orde r890 0 Researc h InstrumentCompetenc yprio r199 7 Researc h US C 55 3 rulemakin g Researc h 1 4 CF R 141.4 1 & 141.8 3 I n re f t o FSIM S orde r890 0 Tota l Du e 55. 0 5610.0 0

EXHIBI T FResearc h an d Analysis , Joh n M . Killee n 81 2 Arends , Rantoul , 116186 6 Bamet t La wOffice s 166 4 Moorian d Ln . Crysta l Lake , II6001 4 Date Descriptio n FA AEnforcemen t RT C 61.57(d) . 141.41(b)(3 ) 141.83(a)(1 ) Hour s 3. 0 7. 2 6. 5 1. 2 0. 5 3. 8 I d li d 2. 0 Amoun t 306.0 0 734.0 0 663.0 0 122.4 0 51.0 0 387.6 0 204.0 0 3/4/201 0 3/5/201 0 3/9/201 0 3/10/201 0 3/31/201 0 4/17/201 0 5/16/201 0 Researc h 4 9 US C 10 6 fo rauthorit yo f standard s

Researc h F R fo rNPR M o n 61.5 7 (d ) An d prio rinterpretatran s t)efor e 199 7 Researc h Cour t o f Appeal s an d NTS B Fo rsimila rcase s Researc h an d locat e FST D numt)er s Researc h 2 8 US C 241 2 Researc h F R fo rNPR M 61.5 7 comment s An d reason s ne wla weffectiv e 10/0 9 Researc h an d revie wal l fo rconferenc e al l document s Devetope d i n matte r Tota l Du e 24. 2 2468.0 0