^):RARTMENTO F 

### HA^'SPORTATIO N v:':: T OPERATION S SERVE D SEPTEMBE

R10,201 0 ^ U.S . DEPARTMEN

T O F TRANSPORTATIO

N OFFICE O FHEARINGS WASHINGTON , D.C . r - .'-••^- f 

## A II : 

## 2 2 

## ^kyJ tfi,^ ^

L^f^JA ) I N TH E MATTE RO F , § ^ 

# iEks^ ) i RJGCURREN

T TRAININ

G CENTER , IN

C 1 0 ^ T FA A DOCKE

T NO . (CPWGLflMi ) 0 0 j O - Q • I (Civi l Penalt

y Action ) _i l j r- o - ——-1 1

APPLICATIO N FO RA

N AWAR D O F ATTORNE Y FEE S AN D OTHE REXPENSE S PURSUAN

T T O TH E EQUA L ACCES S T O JUSTIC E AC T (EAjA ) COMES NO

W Applicant , RECURREN T TRAININ

G CENTER , INC. , b

y an dthrough it s counsel , BARNET

T LA W OFFICES , P.C , pursuan t t o 5 U.S.C . §50

4 and1 4 C.F.R . §1 4 hereb y applie s fo

r attorne y fee s an dothe r expense s incuire di

n Th e Matte r o f Recurren t Training Center , FA

A Docke t No . (CP09FL0008) . Th

e Initia l Decisio n of

Administrativ e La

w Judg e Richar dC . Goodwi

n ("Decision" ) wa s servedAugust 11 , 2010 . (Se e attachedExhibit A , Decision ) The Decision foun dtha t th e aUegaiion s of

the FA A ("Agency" ) wer

e no t proven an d th e Complain

t wa s dismissed . According t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.20(c)(4) , a n initia l decisio n i s considere dto b e afinal decisio n i f n o petitio n fo

r reconsideratio n i s filedo

n th e las t da y o n whic h suc h apetitio n coul db e filed . Th e FA A di dno t timely file a

n appea l withi n 1 0 day s of th e initia l decisio n (i.e . by Augus t

23 , 2010) , a

t whic h tim e the initia l decisio n becam

e final fo r ptirpose s o f

thi s application . Accordingly , thi s applicatio n i s timely an dappropriat

e i n

600/100 0 SW Q < • VV d 3fLSS6t'30 Z XV d SO^O L 0L02/S0/0 1accordanc e with 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.20(a ) a s i t i s filedn o late r

tha n 3 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 n suppor t o f thi s application :

I . HISTOR Y O F TH E MATTE R 1 . O n Septembe r

21 , 2009 , Applicant , Recurren t Trainin g Centers , Inc . ("RTC" ) wa s advise dthroug h aFina l Notic e o f Propose dCivi l Penalt y 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 dRTC' s timel y writte n reques t fo r ahearing . 3 . RT C hold s an dat

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

fo r a n approve dProvisiona l Pilo t Schoo l wit h aSpecia l Preparatio n Course s ratin g issue db y th e FAA . 4 . RT C als o hold s an da t al l times mentione dherei n hel dTrainin g Cente r Certificat e Numbe r R9KX049 K

with Trainin 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 msuccessfull y complete da n Insdrument

Proficienc y Chec k

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

Mr . Moor e successfull y complete da n 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 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 e (he FTD s approve dfo r RTC . 8 . Th e IPC' s give n t o bot h pilot s di dno t tes t for Landin g fro maStraight-i n o r Circlin g Approac h maneuvers . 9

- Th e Complainan t

asserte dtha t

a n IP 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 firomaStraight-i n an dCirclin g Approac h maneuvers . 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 )

600/SOOi a sw o + VV d StLSSetSO S XVd 30:0 L OLOS/SO/O l11 . RTC arguedtha t th e languag e o f

61,57(d ) i s clea

r an dunambiguou s on it s face an d tha t a n IP C nee donly include " arepresentativ e numbe r o f ta-sks" . 12 . The Cour

t foun dtha t there wer e n o genuine issue s of

materia l fact an dtha t th e matte r coul db e decide do

n question s o f

la w (Se e attache dExhibit

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

t state dL n it s decisio n tiiat

al l allegation s hinge dupon a n evaluatio n o f

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

t fvuthe r state di n it s decisio n tha

t th e prope r readin g of

1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d) require s accomplishmen

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

al l of them , an dno t necessaril y th e one s name di n th e PT S chart . (Se e attache dExhibi t A , Decision , III . Para . 4 ) 15 . Th e Agency' s positio n wouldeffectivel y delete th e word s "representativ e number " an dthe manifes t

intent o f the regulatio n wouldthu s b e thwarted . (See attache d Exhibit A , Decision , 111 . Para . 4 ) 16 . The Cour

t tiirther state dtha t the Agency relie do

n statement s firo

mth e PT S whic

h do no t hav e th e forc e o f

law . Becaus e th e PTS lack s lega l effect , i t ma y no t impos e dutie s no t compelledb

y th e plai n word s o f

1 4 C.F.R , §61.57(d) . (See attache d Exhibi t A , Decision , III . Para . 6 ) ^ 17 . Moreover , th e Cour

t stated , 1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d) require s no explainin g o r supplementatio n by referenc e to extrinsi c documents . A s such , th e argument s o f

th e Agency ar e besid e th e point , (Se e attache dExhibit A , Decision , II I Para . 7 ) 18 . Lastly , the Cour

t decidedtha

t th e allegation s o f

th e Complain

t wer e no t proven an d th e Complian

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

IL APPLICAN T I S TH E PREVAILIN G PART Y The attache dDecisio n (Exhibit A) an dPoint s 1 2 an

d1 4 thr u 1 8 abov e clearl y establis h tha t th e Applican

t i s the prevailin g party , r,U . TH E POSITIO N O F TH E FAA WA S NO T SUBSTANTIALL Y JUSTIFIE D Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . §14.04 , the applican t point s ou t tha t the positio n o f

th e Agency wa s no t substantially justifie da s indicate db y point s 1 4 thr

u 1 7 above . The Agency wa s no t substantially

GOO/SOOi aSW O < • VV dStLSGGtSO S XV d90:0 l OLOS/SO/O Ljustifie 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 Court rejecte dan y suc h assertions . Th e Court als o stale 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 , 111 . Para . 4 ) It i s apparen t

then , tha t th e FA A kne w o r

shoul dhav e know n that 1 4 C.F.R . §61.57(d ) wa s clear o n it s face . Accordingly , th e positio n o f th e Agency , that 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 E INITIATIO N O F THES E PROCEEDINGS . Pursuan t tol 4 C.F.R . §14.03 , RT C i s a"party " a s define di n 5 U.S.C . 504(b)(1)(B ) an d5 U.S.C . 551(3) . Further , pursuan t t o 14C.F.R . §14.11 , RT C i s acorporatio n employin g les s tha n 50 0 employee s wit h ane t worth o f les s tha n 5 7 millio n at

th e initiatio n o f

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

th e initiatio n o f

thes e proceeding s engage dapproximatel y 1 9 employees . I n th e one-year perio d prio r t o th e dat e o n whic h thi s proceedin g wa s iiutialed , th e Applican t di dno t transfe r an y asset s o r incu r an y obligation s that

reduce dth e ne t

wort h o f th e Applican t

belo w th e applicabl e ne t wort h ceiling . A detaile dexhibi t

showin g th e ne t

wort h o f th e Applican t

a t th e initiatio n o f

thes e proceeding s i s attached , (Se e Exhibi t B. )

V . TOTA L FEE S AN D COST S FO RWHIC H A N AWAR D I S SOUGHT : $19,416.8 0

GOO/tOO ®SW Q -i

- VV d StLSSetSO S XV d 90:0 L OL03/S0/O LDocumentation 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 . (See Exhibit C ) Pursuant

to 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.05(c) , th e followin g shall b e considere di n determinin g th e reasonablenes s o f th e fee s sough

t fo r a n attorney : 1 . Charle s R . Bamett , i n a s th e owne r o f Bamet t La w Offices , P.C . i s i

n private practic e an dconcentrate s hi s practic e in aviatio n law . Hi s customar y fe e fo r suc h service s i s $200 pe

r hour . 2 . The prevailin g rate fo r simila r service s in the communit

y i n whic h Bamet

t La w Offices , P.C . i s locate di s substantiate db y the attache daffidavits j&o mtw o othe

r attorney s wh

o als o practic e aviatio n la

w i n th e sam e community . (Se e attache daffidavit s a t Exhibit ? D an

dE) 3 . Th e time actually spen t i n representatio n o f

RT C i s documente di n th e attache d Exhibi t C . 4 . The time spen

t o n thi s matte

r wa s reasonabl e i

n ligh t o f th e difficult

y o r complexit y of th e issue s i n th e proceeding ; an d 5 . Such othe

r factors a s ma

y bea r o n the valu e o f

th e service s provide dwouldinclude Mr . Bamett' s extensiv e backgroundi n aviation , v^iic h include s ove r 10,000 flight

hour s logge da s a

n Airlin e Transpor

t Pilo t andaMaster s Degre e in Aeronautica l Scienc e fi-omEmbr

y Riddl e Aeronautica

l University . Mr . Baraet

t i s als o apane l attorney o f

th e Aircraf

t Owner s an dPilot s Associatio n Lega

l Service s Pla

n an da s suc h ha s receive dspecifi c Trainin g an deducatio n regardin g representatio n o f client s i n matter s concernin g th e FAA , Documentatio n o f

fee s pai do

r payabl e t o Joh n M , Killeen i s attached . (Se e Exhibit F) . Pursuant t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 14.05(c) , th e following shal l b e considere di n determinin g th e reasonablenes s o

f th e fee s sough

t for a n agent ;

eoo/soo ® sw a < - VVd sfrLseet'So s xv d so^o i OLOS/SO/O LJoh n M , Killeen i s the Presiden t o f RTC an dprovide dresearch andanalysi s o f FA A publications , regulation s an dothe r controllin g guidanc e i

n thi s matter . Hi s customar y fe e fo r suc h service s i s $10 2 pe

r hour . 2 . Th e tim

e actually spen

t i n research andanalysi s of issue s involvin g thi s matte r i s documentedi

n th e attachedExhibit

F ; an d 4 . The tim

e spen t on thi s matte

r wa s reasonabl e i

n ligh t of th e difficult

y or complexit y of th e issue s i

n th e proceeding . Al l fee s requeste dar

e fo r wor k performe dafte r the issuanc e o f

the complaint . VI . CONCLUSIO N Fo r all o f th e foregoing reasons , thi s Cour t shouldfindtha

t the Applican

t i s th e prevailing part y i n thi s matter , tha

t the Applican

t meet s th e economic thresholdqualificatio n criteri aof th e EAJA , tha t a n attorne y clien t relationshi

p exist s an dtha t attorney s fee s an

dothe r expense s wer

e incuired , andtha

t th e Agency (FAA) wa s no t substantially justifie di n th e litigatio n whic h ledt o thi s appea l whe n i t faile dto properly follow th e plai n languag e of 1 4 CF R§67.51(d

) in applying th e term s "representativ e numbe r o f tasks " whe

n considering wha

t shoul drequire dof

th e Applican t to conduc t

Instrumen t Proficiency Checks in aFlight Training Device . Subsequently , die awar do f fee s i s warrante din th e interest s o f justice . WHEREFORE , th e Cour

t shouldorde

r tiie Agenc y t o pa y t o the Applicant , $19,416.80 , di e amoun t requestedi

n thi s application .

600/800 0 S W Q * • VVd StLSGGtSO S XV d 90:0 L OLOS/SO/O lLis t o f Attache dExhibit s Exhibi t Numbe r A B

D E F Documen t Initia l Decisio n o f

Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dC . Goodwi n Ne t Worth Statemen t

o f Reciuren t Trainin g Cente r Attorne 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 n Scot t

Hof ^ Esq . Invoice s o f

Joh n M . Killee n Numha r o f Page s 6 1 2 1 1 2 Dated : Septembe r

10 , 201 0

Charle s R . Bamett , II I BARl^IET T LAW OFFICES , P. C 166 4 Moorlan dLan e Crysta l Lake , Illinoi s 60014-298 5 (815)356-864 7 (815 ) 356-704 2 (FAX ) RespectfiJl y submitted .

Recurren t Trainin g Center , Inc .

GOO/iOOi a s w o * VV d StLSSGtSO S XV d 90:0 L OLOS/SO/O LCERTIFICAT E O F VERIFICATIO N Under penalt y o f perjur y a s provide db y la

w th e undersigne dcimifie s tha i rh e informaiio n se t fort h i n thi s APPLICATIO N FORA N AWAR D O F ATTORNE Y FEE S AN D OTHE R EXPENSE S PURSUAN T T O TH E EQUA L ACCES S T O JUSTIC E AC T (EAJA ) ar e uu e an d correct , excep t

a s t o matter s therei n state dt

o b e o n informatio n andbelie f

anda s t o suc h matter s (he undersigne dcertifie s a s aforesai dtha t h e vcriJ y believe s rhe same t

o b e true .

\ h -/—" ^ Date dthi s / ^ day o f September , 2010 . John,KilIe e Pfcsyen t Recurren t Trainin g Cente r 315SDunla p Savoy , I L 6187 4

G00/800i a SN Q * VV d St'LSGGt'SO S XV d 90:0 l OLOS/SO/O LCERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E Th e undersigne dcertifie s tha t th e foregoin g Repl y Brie f wa s 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 , 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 E COP 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 L 60018-469 6 TEL ; 847-294-771 3 FAX : 847-294-749 8 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Ofac e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jer.sey Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mE12-32 0 Wasliington , 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 Date dthi s 10* * day o f

September , 2010 . aariesRrBaSrtrnr^" ^ Attorne y fo r

Applican t

GOO/GOOi a SW G VV d StL5eGf20 S XV d90:0 L 0102/SO/O l