Serve dOctobe r 8,201 0 

## U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTIO N OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . I N TH E MATTE

RO F RECURREN T TRAININ GCENTER , INC . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP009GL000 8 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S No . FAA-2009-097 1 .rmRTMENTO F •••" TOPERATION S



### •• ::n 8 

### p i:3 b

AGENCY' S RESPONS E T O APPLICATIO N FO RA N AWAR D O F ATTORNEY' S FEE S AN D OTHE REXPENSE S PURSUAN T T O TH E EQUA LACCES S T O JUSTIC E AC T (EAJA )

INTRODUCTIO N Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.22 , th e Complainant , th e FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N ("FAA " o r "Agency") , hereb y file s it s Respons e t o Applicant' s Applicatio n for an Awar do f

Attorne y Fee s an dOthe r Expense s Purusan t

t o th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac t (EAJA ) serve dSeptembe r 10,2010 . O n Septembe r

21 , 2009 , aFina l Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalty wa s issue dallegin g th e following : 1 . Recurren t

Trainin g Centers , Inc.(hereinafte r RTC ) hold s an dat

all time s mentione dherei n hel dan ai r Agenc y Certificat e Numbe r R9KS949 K

for an approve dProvisiona l Pilo t Schoo l wit haSpecia l Preparatio n Course s ratin g issue db y th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration . 2 . RT C als o hold s an dat al l time s mentione dherei n hel dTrainin g Cente r Certificat e Numbe r R9KX049 K

withTrainin g Specification s t o conduc t trainin g course s withrespec t

t o 1 4 C.F.R . 142 . 3 . O n o r

abou t January 16 , 2008 , RT C certifie dthat Mr . VanBerko msuccessfiolly complete da

n Instrument

Proficienc y Chec k

an do n Decembe r

17 , 2007 , RT Ccertifie dtha t Mr . Moor e successfull y complete da n Instrument Proficienc y Check . RT C wa s not

equippe do r

authorize dunde r

RTC' s Ai r

Agenc y Certification s t o performthes e Instrument Proficienc y Check s usin g Fligh t Trainin g Device s (FTDs) . 4 . I n orde r

t o performInstrumen t

Proficienc y Check s al l mandator y TASK s (TASK s ar e title s o f

knowledg e areas , flight

procedures , o r

maneuver s appropriat e t o an ARE A O FOPERATION ) mus t b e teste dincludin g Circlin g Approache s an d Landin g fi-omaStraight-i n o r Circlin g Approac ha s require di n th e practica l tes t standards . Thes e tw o TASK s canno t b e performe dwithaFT D Leve l 1,3 o r 6 . Leve l 1 , 3 an d6 ar e th e FTD s approve dfor RTC . I n th e Fina l Notic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penalty , th e Agenc y foun dthre e regulatory violations : a . 1 4 C.F.R . Sectio n 141.41(b)(3) : Eac hflight trainin g devic e use dt o obtai n flight trainin g credi t

allowe dfor

flight trainin g device s i n a n approve dpilo t trainin g cours e curriculu mmus t

(3 ) hav e bee n evaluated , qualified , an dapprove db y th e Agency . b . 1 4 C.F.R . Sectio n 141.83(a)(1) : Eac hpilo t schoo l o r

provisiona l pilo t

schoo l mus t mee t th e followin g requirement s (1 ) compl y wit hit s approve dtrainin g course . c . 1 4 C.F.R . Sectio n 61.57(d) : Instrument proficienc y check . A perso n wh o doe s no t mee t th e instrumen t

experienc e requirement s o f paragrap h(c ) o f

thi s sectio n withi n th e prescribe dtim e o r

withi n 6 calendar

month s after

th e prescribe dtime , may not serv e a s pilo t

i n comman dunde r

IF Ro r i n weathe r

condition s les s tha n th e minimtim s prescribe dfor

VF Runti l tha t

perso n passe s a n instrumen t proficienc y chec k consistin g o f

arepresentativ e numbe r

o f task s require db y th e instrumen t ratin g practica l test . Th e Fina l Notic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penalty impose da$3,85 0 Civi l Penalty for th e allege dviolations . Applicant , throug hcounsel , requeste daformal hearing . O n Octobe r 28 , 2009 , Judg e Goodwi n issue daProcedura l Orde r for th e above captione dcase . O n Novembe r 5 , 2009 , Applican t

filed aMotio n t o Dismis s i n Lie u o f Answer . O n Decembe r

7 , 2009 , Judg e Goodwi n denie dApplicant' s Motion , statin g "Th e pleading s sho w tha t Responden t

ha s no t me t it s burde n o f

demonstratin g tha t

i t i s entitle dt o judgmen t

a s amatte r

o f law. " Judg e Goodwi n ordere dApplican t

t o file a n Answe r

t o th e Agency' s Complain t whic hi t di ds o o n Decembe r

15 , 2009 .O n Marc h23,2010 , Applican t filed aMotio n fo r

Decision . O n Marc h29,2010 , th e Agenc y filed aMotio n fo r Decisio n withou t

aHearin g an dRespons e t o Respondent' s Motio n for Decision . Judg e Goodwi n issue dan Orde r o n Motio n o n Apri l 5 , 2010 , orderin g th e partie s t o file an Agree dStatemen t

o f Fact s an dLega l Briefs . Th e Agenc y an dApplican t filedth e require d statemen t an dbrief s and , o n Augus t

11,2010 , Judg e Goodwi n issue dadecisio n dismissin g th e allege dviolation s agains t Applicant . O n Septembe r 10,2010 , Applican t

filedit s Applicatio n fo

r a n Awar do f

Attorne y Fee s an dOthe r Expense s Pursuan t

t o th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Act . TH E APPLICABL E LA W Th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac t (EAJA ) require s th e governmen t t o pay certai n attorne y fee s an dcost s t o aprevailin g party unles s th e governmen t establishe s tha t

it s positio n wa s substantiall y justifie do r

tha t specia l circumstance s woul dmak e an awar do f fee s unjust . 5 U.S.C . § 504(a)(1) . Whil e mos t case s ar e ultimatel y decide dbase do n acarefu l balancin g o f thei r uniqu e facts , ther e ar e som e basi c principle s tha t ar e wel l establishe db y EAJ A precedent . I n Gar y J . Lee . 201 0 W L3349550 , FA A No . CP10SW000 8 (Aug . 24 , 2010) , th e Administrativ e La w Judg e explaine dth e statut e an dregulation' s ter m"substantiall y justified" : A n actio n i s substantiall y justifie dwhe n i t ha s areasonabl e basi s i n la w an dfact . Pierc e V . Underwood , 48 7 U.S . 552 , 56 5 (1988) ; 1 4 CF R14.04(a) ; Michae l Edwar dWendt , FA A Orde r

93- 9 (Marc h25,1993) , p . 3 . Th e charge s mus t b e justifie dt o th e degre e tha t coul dsatisf

y areasonabl e person . Th e standar di s me t i f ther e i s a"genuin e dispute, " o r i f reasonabl e peopl e coul ddiffer a s t o th e appropriatenes s o f th e conteste daction . Pierc e v . Underwood , p . 565 . Th e agenc y mus t sho w (a ) areasonabl e basi s i n truthfor th e fact s alleged ; (b ) areasonabl e basi s i n la w fo r th e lega l theor y propounded ; an d(3 ) a reasonabl e connectio n betwee n fact s an dtheory . Valley Ai r Services , Inc. , FA A Orde r No . 95-2 7 (Decembe r

19,1995) , p . 6 , pet . fo r

reconsid . denied , FA A Orde r No . 96-1 5 (May 3 , 1996) ; Smit

hv . Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Board , 99 2 F.2 d849 , 85 2 (8 * Cir . 1993) . Failur e t o prevai l doe s no t rais e apresumptio n o f

lac k o f substantial justification . I t mus t not b e assume dtha t

th e government' s positio n wa s no t substantiall y justifie dsimpl y becaus e i t los t o n th e merits . Morga n v . Perry , 14 2 F.3 d670 , 68 5 (3'"' ' Cir . 1998) ; Ba yAre aPeac e Nav y v . Unite dStates , 91 4 F.2 d1224 , 123 1 n . 4 (9 * Cir . 1990) ; Michae l

Edwar dWendt, FA A Orde r 93- 9 (Marc h25,1993) , p . 3 . Th e agenc y nee dnot demonstrat e tha t

i t ha dasubstantiei l likelihoo do f prevailin g t o prov e tha t

it s litigatio n positio n wa s substantiall y justified . Kiareldee n v . Ashcroft , 27 3 F.3 d542 , 55 4 (3^" ^ Cur. 2001) ; Michae l Edwar dWendt, FA A Orde r 93-9 . Th e agenc y i s entitle dt o 'err ' o n th e sid e o f bringin g clos e case s t o tria l t o fiilfill it s mandat e o f

enforcin g an densurin g ai r safety . I n determinin g whethe r

th e governmen t

i s substantiall y justifie dunde r EAJA , acourt shoul dden y a

n applicatio n for

cost s an dfee s i f

"th e Governmen t

acte dslightl y mor e tha n reasonably , eve n thoug hno t i n complianc e wit hsubstantiv e lega l standard s applie di n th e merit s phase. " Federa l Electio n Commissio n v . Rose , 80 6 F.2 d1081 , 108 7 (D.C . Cir . 1986) . Additionally , eac hallegatio n o f th e government' s cas e shoul dno t b e separatel y examine dt o determin e whethe r i t i s substantiall y jusitifed . Gar y J . Lee , 201 0 W L 3349550 , FA A No . CP10SW0008 , 2 (Aug . 24 , 2010) . Rather , th e examinatio n mus t b e broadl y focused . A s explaine di n th e denia l o f th e EAJ A applicatio n i n Gar y J . Lee , "'[sjubstantia l justification ' connote s an active , searchin g inquiry int o th e quality o f evidenc e advance dan dth e overal l reasonablenes s o f th e agency' s position. " (citin g Unite dBrotherhoo do f

Carpenter s an dJoiner s v . NLRB , 89 1 F.2 d1160 , 116 3 (5thCir . 1990)) . Thus , th e government' s cas e mus t b e examine da s awhole , an deac hpositio n take n b y th e governmen t

mus t b e viewe di n ligh t

o f ho w i t affecte dth e cas e a s awhole . Th e Agenc y i s substantiall y justifie di n pursuin g an actio n i f i t relie do n areasonabl e interpretatio n o f

th e evidenc e o r

ha da"reasonabl e basi s for proceeding. " Applicatio n o f Custo m Aviatio n Inc. , 200 5 WL6499275 , FA A No . CP05NM000 8 (Jun e 15 , 2008) . Th e Agen y doe s no t nee dt o demonstrat e tha t

i t ha dasubstantia l likelihoo do f prevailin g i n orde r

t o avoi dEAJ A fees . I d(citin g Kiareldee n v . Ashcroft , 27 3 F.3 d542 , 55 4 (3 dCir . 2001)) .Regardin g th e amoun t o f an y awar di f

th e governmen t

i s eve r foimdnot

t o b e substantiall y justifie di n it s actions , pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.05(b) , "n o awar dfor th e fe e o f

an attorne y o r agen t unde r thi s par t may excee d$12 5 pe r

hour. " Furthermore , a

. pr o s e litigan t

may no t recove r attorney' s fee s imde r

EAJA . Securitie s an dExchang e Commissio n v . Waterhouse , 4 1 F.3 d805 , 808-80 9 (2 dCir . 1994) . Se e als o I n th e Matte r o f Wester n Ai r Express , 200 9 W L1765808 , FA A No . CP09SW0003 , 2 (Jun e 19 , 2009)(wher e th e majority shareholder/sol e employe e o f th e Applican t compan y sough t

reimbursemen t

for hi s tim e an deffor

t expende di n defendin g Applican t company' s case , th e cour t hel dtha t th e reimbursemen t

sough t wa s largel y th e employee' s valuatio n o f

tim e h e spen t

a s acorporat e employe e whic hi s no t th e typ e o f

fee s an d expense s authorize dvmde r EAJA) . UNDERLYIN GEVIDENC E AVAILABL E T O TH E AGENC Y Judg e Goodwin' s intrepetatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 61.57(d ) determine dth e outcom e o f thi s case . Applican t an dth e Agenc y too k

differen t view s o f th e languag e o f

§ 61.57(d) ; however , th e Agency' s interpretatio n o f th e regulatio n wa s reasonabl e an d"substantiall y justified " base do n th e agree dfacts . O n Apri l 23 , 2010 , th e Agenc y an dApplican t submitte dan Agree dStatemen t o f Fact s a s follows : 1 . O n Septembe r

21 , 2009 , Respondent , Recurren t Trainin g Centers , Inc. , wa s advise dthroug haFina l Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalty tha t th e FA A propose d t 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 FA A receive dRespondent' s timel y writte n reques t for a hearing . 3 . Responden t

hold s an dat

al l time s mentione dherei n hel dan Ai r Agenc y Certificat e Numbe r

R9KS949 K

for an approve dProvisiona l Pilo t Schoo l witha Specia l Preparatio n Course s ratin g issue db y th e FAA .4 . RT C als o hold s an dat al l time s mentione dhere mhel dTrainin g Cente r Certificat e Numbe r R9KX049 K

wit hTrainin g Specification s t o conduc t Gainin g course s wit hrespec 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 msuccessfull y complete da n Instrument

Proficienc y Chec k

an do n Decembe r

17 , 2007 , RT C certifie dtha t

Mr . Moor e successfiill y complete dan Instrumen t Proficienc y Check . Thes e IPC s wer e performe di n aFligh t Trainin g Devic e ("FTD") , Leve l 1 , 3 , o r 6 . 6 . Circlin g Approache s an dLandin g fro maStraight-i n o r Circlin g Approac h maneuver s canno t

b e performe dwit haFligh 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 dfor RTC . Th e Agency' s reasonabl e intrepetatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . § 61.57(d ) require dtha t Applican t

tes t for thos e representativ e task s require db y th e Instrument Ratin g Practica l Tes t

standard s (PTS) . Accordin g t o th e admitte dfacts . Applican t di dno t tes t for tw o maneuver s require db y th e PT S and , therefore , th e Agenc y wa s substantiall y justifie di n assertin g tha t Applican t

violate dth e Federa l Aviatio n Regulations . Th e Agency' s positio n wa s reasonabl e base dbot hi n la w an dfac t and , therefore , th e Applicatio n for an Awar dpursuan t

t o EAJ A shoul db e denied . O n Decembe r 7 , 2009 , Judg e Goodwi n denie dApplicant' s Motio n t o Dismis s th e Agency' s Complaint , further demonstratin g th e reasonablenes s o f th e Agency' s position . I n respons e t o Applicant' s motion . Judg e Goodwi n state dtha t "Th e pleading s sho w tha t Responden t

ha s not me t it s burde n o f demonstratin g tha t

i t i s entitle dt o judgmen t

a s amatte r

o f law. " APPLICANT' S CLAI M UNDE REAJ A Th e Applican t

seek s 100 % o f

hi s cos t o f lega l representatio n base do n th e fac t tha t Judg e Goodwi n dismisse dth e Agency' s Complain t an dfoun dtha t

th e allegation s wer e not

proven . Th e Applican t als o seek s 100 % o f

reimbursemen t

for it s President' s researc hregardin g th e Agency' s Complainant .ARGUMEN T

I . Substantia l Justificatio n Th e Cod e o f

Federa l Regulation s at

1 4 CF R§ 61.57(d ) rea da s follow s a t th e tim e o f

th e violation : Instrumen t

proficienc y check . Excep t a s provide di n paragrap h(e ) o f thi s section , a perso n wh o doe s not

mee t th e instrumen t

experienc e requirement s o f paragrap h(c ) o f thi s sectio n withi n th e prescribe dtime , o r withi n 6 calendar

month s afte

r th e prescribe dtime , ma y no t serv e a s pilo t

i n comman dunde r

IF Ro r u i weathe r condition s les s tha n th e mmimum s prescribe dfor VF Runti l tha t

perso n passe s a n instrumen t

proficienc y chec k

consistin g o f

arepresentativ e numbe r

o f task s require d b y th e instrumen t

ratin g practica l test . Th e FA A interprete d1 4 C.F.R . § 61.57(d ) t o mea n tha t tha t Applican t

mus t performinstrumen t proficienc y check s consistin g o f th e specific , representativ e task s require db y th e instrumen t ratin g practica l tes t

standards . Th e Applican t interprete d§ 61.57(d ) t o mea n tha t Applican t

coul d performinstrumen t

proficienc y check s consistin g o f task s typica l o f

thos e require db y th e instrumen t

ratin g practica l test . Th e Agency' s interpretatio n wa s reasonabl e base do n areadin g o f th e regulatio n alon g wit hth e instrumen t ratin g practica l tes t

standards . Th e Agenc y was substantiall y justifie di n it s actio n agains t Applican t

for certifyin g instrumen t

proficienc y check s withou t testin g th e representativ e maneuver s o r task s require db y th e instrumen t ratin g practica l tes t standards . Th e clear , imambiguou s languag e o f § 61.57(d ) refer s t o th e "representativ e numbe r o f task s require db y th e instrumen t ratin g practica l test. " Th e Agenc y reasonabl y interprete dthi s langiiag e t o incorporat e th e "instrumen t ratin g practica l test " standard s int o §61.57(d) . Furthermore , th e introductor y pag e o f th e Instrument

Ratin g Practica l Tes t

Standard s ("PTS") , numbe r FAA-S-8081-4 D clearl y states , i n itali c an dbol dwordmg , "Adherenc e t o th e provision s o f th e regulation s an dth e practica l tes t standard s i s mandator y fo r evaluatio n o f

instrumen tpilo t

applicants."^(not e th e emphasi s i n original) . Th e PT S additionall y state , "Applicant s for an instrumen t

proficiency chec k

require db y 1 4 CF Rsectio n 61.5 7 mus t performt o th e standard s o f th e TASK s liste di n th e guidanc e provide do n pag e 16. " No t onl y doe s §61.57(d ) specificall y incorporat e th e PTS , bu t

als o th e PTS ' unambiguous , stron g wordin g mandate s tha t th e PT S b e adhere dt o i n orde r

t o successfull y complet e a n instrumen t proficienc y check . Therefore , whe n readin g th e regulatio n i n conjunctio n withth e PTS , th e reasonabl e conclusio n i s tha t th e PT S mus t b e complie dwit hwhe n certifiyin g an instrumen t proficienc y chec k

i n accordanc e wit h1 4 C.F.R . § 61.57(d) . Applican t admittedl y di dno t

performth e representativ e task s require db y th e PTS . Applyin g it s reasonabl e interpretatio n o f th e regulation s t o th e agree dfacts , th e Agenc y wa s substantiall y justifie di n it s positio n tha t Applicant' s failur e t o tes t for certai n task s wa s a violatio n o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulations . Th e Applican t

relie dupo n aportio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . § 61.57(d ) i n hi s defens e wher e th e regulatio n state s tha t

" arepresentativ e numbe r o f tasks " require db y th e PT S ar e require dfor an instrumen t

proficienc y check . I t

argue dtha t

i t ha dcomplete darepresentativ e numbe r o f task s an dtha t no t all o f th e PT S task s wer e required , an dtherefor e i t di dnot violat e 1 4 C.F. R§ 61.57(d) . However , th e FA A reasonabl y conclude dtha t th e ter m"representative " doe s no t mea n tha t th e Applican t

get s t o choos e wha t

task s ar e teste dfromthos e liste di n th e PTS . Rather , i t refer s t o th e "representative " task s alread y spelle dout i n th e PT S an drequire s tha t thos e task s b e tested . Fro mal l o f

th e possibl e task s tha t

an IP C coul dchec k

for , th e PT S ha s alread y determine dwhic htask s ar e th e necessary , representativ e task s for any give n Aer ao f

Operation. ^ Th e FA A reasonabl y determine dtha t th e task s outline di n th e PT S ar e th e representativ e task s require db y § 61.57(d) . Thi s positio n i s extremel y logica l basedo n areading o f th e regulatio n i n

' Se e Agency' s Opening Brief

fieldApril 5 , 2010 , Pag e 4 an dExhibit A-2 , pag e 2/16 .conjunctio n wit hth e PTS . Therefor e th e FA A wa s substantiall y justifie db y arguin g tha t

Applican t violate d§ 61.57(d ) becaus e i t faile dt o tes t

for tw o maneuver s require db y th e representativ e task s outline di n th e PTS , and , therefore , als o require db y 61.57(d) . Whil e Judg e Goodwi n accepte dApplicant' s interpretatio n o f th e regulation , th e Agenc y ha d areasonabl e interpretatio n o f th e regulatio n an dapplie di t t o th e undispute dfact s o f th e case . Th e FA A interprete d1 4 C.F.R . § 61.57(d ) t o mea n tha t tha t Applican t

mus t performinstrumen t proficienc y check s consistin g o f th e specific , representativ e teisks require db y th e instrumen t ratin g practica l tes t

standards . Th e Applican t interprete d§ 61.57(d ) t o mea n tha t Applican t

coul d performinstrumen t

proficienc y check s consistin g o f arepresentative sampl e o f th e representative task s require db y th e instrumen t ratin g practica l test . Neithe r th e FAA , th e Applicant , no r Judg e Goodwi n ha dth e benefi t

o f previou s interpretation s o r cas e law t o rel y upo n whe n interpretin g thi s regulation . Th e FAA' s interpretatio n wa s reasonabl e i n that i t looke dat th e languag e o f

th e regulatio n an dit s explici t inclusio n o f

th e practia l tes t

standards , whic hvmarguably requir e instrumen t

proficienc y check s includ e maneauver s tha t Applican t

di dno t perform . Th e regulatio n wa s reasonabl y interprete dt o requir e tha t instrumen t

proficienc y chec k

compl y with th e Instrumen t

Ratin g Practica l Tes t

standards . Thi s interpretatio n o f th e regulatio n i s extremel y logica l an dreasonabl e and , whil e not th e interpretatio n adopte db y Judg e Goodwin , th e FA A was substantiall y justifie di n it s mterpretation . A s mentione dabove , ther e wa s no t confiictin g evidence , rathe r conflictin g interpretation s o f regulation s tha t

unti l no w hav e no t

bee n examine db y th e court . A s indicate db y Judg e Goodwin' s denia l o f

Applicant' s Novembe r

5 , 200 9 Motion t o Dismiss , th e Agenc y brough t fort henoug hevidenc e t o sustai n aMotio n t o Dismiss . Th e Agenc y wa s substantiall y justifie di n

^ Se e Agency' s Opening Brief

fieldApril 5 , 2010 , Exhibit A-2 , page 2/16 .pursuin g a n actio n i f i t relie do n areasonabl e interpretatio n o f th e evidenc e a s i t

applie s t o th e law . Th e fac t

tha t th e Administrativ e La w Judg e interprete dth e undispute dfact s an dho w the y applie dt o th e regulation s differentl y tha n th e Agenc y doe s no t rende r th e Agency' s positio n unjustified . II . Awar d Eve n i f i t i s foun dtha t

th e Agenc y wa s not

justifie di n it s actions, , th e requeste dawar d shoul db e severel y reduce da s Applican t i s not entitle dt o an hourl y rat e i n exces s o f tha t provide db y statut e an di s no t entitle dt o reimbursemen t o f Mr . Killeen' s excessiv e efforts . Althoug hApplicant' s attorne y cite s an hourl y rat e o f $200 , pursuan t

t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.05(b) , th e Applican t

shoul dnot

b e awarde dattorney s fee s i n exces s o f $12 5 pe r hour . Additionally , i f Applicant' s attorne y ha dsuc huniqu e expertis e tha t i t require da n hourl y rat e above an dbeyon d tha t permitte db y statut e an dregulations , ther e i s n o reaso n tha t Applican t

woul dals o nee dth e service s o f

it s ow n Presiden t

t o assis t Applicant' s attorney . A revie w o f

Applicant' s Applicatio n fo r an Awar do f

Attorne y Fee s an dOthe r Expense s Pursuan t t o th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac t (EAJA ) Exhibi t

Fillustrate s tha t

Applicant' s ow n Presiden t attempt s t o ac t

a s Applicant' s attorne y a s h e performe dlega l work suc ha s researchin g statutes , regulations , th e federal register , notic e o f propose drul e makings , court o f appeal s decisions , an dNTS B decisions . A s i n Securitie s an dExchang e Commissio n v . Waterhouse , 4 1 F.3 d805 , 808-80 9 (2 dCir . 1994 ) an dI n th e Matte r o f Wester n Ai r Express , 200 9 W L1765808 , FA A No . CP09SW0003 , 2 (Jun e 19 , 2009) , Mr . Joh n Killeen , Presiden t o f Recurren t

Trainm g Cente r (Applicant ) attempt s t o b e reimburse dfor hi s effort s representin g hi s ow n company . Mr . Killee n wa s essentiall y "conductin g apr o s e defens e o n behal f o f acorporatio n o f

whic hh e i s th e alte r ego . Th e amoimt s for

whic hh e no w seek s 'reimbursement ' are largel y hi s ow n valuatio n o f

1 0tim e h e spen t a s acorporat e employee . The y ar e not th e typ e o f

fee s t o attorney s an dagents an d similar litigatio n expense s fo r

whic hCongres s authorize dreimbursemen t imde r th e EAJA. " Wester n Ai r Express , 200 9 W L1765808 , FA A No . CP09SW0003, 2 (Jun e 19,2009) . I f Mr . Joh n Killee n (Presiden t o f Applicant/RTC ) wa s hire da s an independen t subjec t matte r exper t t o assisi t Applicant' s attorne y i n representin g Applican t (RTC) , th e amoimt

o f tim e spen t an dallegedl y charge dt o RT C i s extrememel y excessive . Althoug hth e FAA' s positio n ca n b e understoo db y spendin g a n hou r o r tw o reviewin g th e regulatio n an dPTS , Mr . Killee n allegedl y charge dRT C for

ove r seventy-nin e (79 ) hour s o f researc han danalysis . I f th e governmen t

i s not foimdsubstantiall y justified , at most , Applican t

shoul donl y b e entitle dt o th e cos t o f afe w o f Mr . Killeen' s research . Furthermore , i f Applicant' s attorne y i s an expert i n th e area , ther e shoul d b e n o nee dfor

Applican t

t o pa y it s Presiden t

fo r researc han danlysis . Consequently , i f

th e FA A i s foun dt o not

b e substantiall y jusitifie di n it s actions , th e requeste dawar dshoul db e severel y reduce da s Applican t i s not entitle dt o an hourl y rat e i n exces s o f tha t provide db y statut e an di s not entitle dt o reimbursemen t o f Mr . Killeen' s excessiv e efforts . CONCLUSIO N Th e Agenc y ha dan dpresente dreasonabl e evidenc e an dargument s tha t it s interpretatio n o f 1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d ) requirin g Applican t t o performa n instrumen t proficienc y chec k

i n accordianc e wit hth e representativ e task s require db y th e Instrustrumen t Proficienc y Tes t Standard s was substantiall y justified . Judg e Goodwi n foun dtha t th e FA A di dnot

prov e tha t

th e Applican t violate dth e Federa l Aviatio n Regulations , no t becaus e o f

afactual dispute , but

rathe r becaus e o f

adifferen t

interpretatio n o f

th e regulation s a s applie dt o th e facts . Thi s doe s no t rende r th e positio n o f

th e Agenc y les s tha n substantiall y justified . Give n th e fact s o f thi s cas e 1 1an dth e evidenc e availabl e an dpresented , th e Agenc y was substantiall y justifie di n defendin g th e

appea l o f it s Septembe r

21,200 9 Fina l Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalty . Therefor e th e Applicant' s clai mshoul db e denie di n it s entirety . However , i f

i t i s foun dtha t

th e Agenc y wa s not

substantiall y justifie di n hi s position , the n th e awar drequeste dshoul db e reduced . Dated : Octobe r

8,201 0 Respectfull y submitted . 

# \\(VJi^.i k Brian aMartin o Attorney , AGL-7 M Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l 230 0 E . Devo n Avenu e De s Plaines , I L6001 8 Phone : 847-294-731 3 FAX : 847-294-749 8 briana.martino@faa.go v

1 2CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t I have , thi s date , serve dth e foregoin g Agency' s Respons e t o Applicatio n fo r

a n Awar do f

Attorne y Fee s an dOthe r Expense s Pursuan t

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

(EAJA ) b y mailin g copie s thereof , vi aRegular

Mail , a s follow s Origina l an dOn 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 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building , Suit e 2W100 0

On e Cop y Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwi n 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 FAX : 202-366-753 6 Charle s R . Barnett , II I Applicant' s Counse l 166 4 Moorlan dLan e Crysta l Lake , I L60014-298 5

Date dthi s 8*

^ day o f October , 201 0

d aQuile s Technicia n

1 3