01/:?3/201 2 13-4 1 FAX 202493514 2 FA A^ OM S @]002/02 i ^pp . 

### •ARTMENTO F ^HANSFORTATiO N "CUKE TOPERATION S Uh4ITE D STATE S O F AMERIC Aur_,,.i!j. o DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N iq, , ISMO- . - ^ > , r OFFIC E O F HEARING S ^I^JAN.^ B M I UO WASHINGTON , D.C . *•*•*««•«»••*«« • «tt«»«B* 4 **«••*• * tk«A*«A*«HHHt* * It « I n th e Matte ro f Su n Ques t Executiv e * FA ADocke t No. : CP08WP000 4 Ai rCharter , Inc . * DM S No . FAA-2008-O23 8

Applicant . * FA ARegion : Western-Pacifi c

* " Judge : Richar d C . Goodwi n

*-*-**-*"»^»****««» * »********««« » < a  «»»»>»**  » i» > COMPLAINANT' S REPL YOPPOSIN G RESPONDENT' S "APPLICATIO N FO R AWAR D O F ATTORNE YFEE S AN D OTHE R EXPENSE S PURSUAN TT O TH E

EQUA L ACCES S T O JUSTIC E AC T<EAJA) " To : AtJminisTrfltiv« ? Law.ludg ^ Richar dC . Ooodwi n an dRespondent : O nDecembe r

22 , 201 1 th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA"' ) Regiona l Counse l receive dSu n Ques t Executiv e Ai r

Charter . Inc.' s (hereinafter . "Su n Quost, " "Applicant/ ' o r

"Respondent" ) applicatio n fo r an awar do f

aiiome y fee s jn dothe r expense s sough i unde r

tJic Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac t (EAJA) . 5 U.S.C . >

; 504. ' Complainan t

hereb y respectrull y submit s it s Repl y opposing . Respondenr s application . PROCEDRUA LHISTORY : O D Octobe r

17 , 2005 . th e FAA' S Regiona l Counse l issue dit s Notic e o f Fropose d Civi l Penall y (NOPCP ) in this.matter . Tha t NOPC Pinclude dth e allegation s anti charge s o f \'iolaiion s o f

1 4 C.F.R . ^ 135.63(a)(4)(vii) . Responden t responde dt o tha t

>sfo:ic c b y requestin g an informa l conference , whic hwa s hel dwit hResponden t an dir s counse l o n Applica m2^'^, o eiT0Tiec>u5l

> cite s 1 4 C.F.R . " § ?21C. l e

x seq.' " as authorit

y fo r it s request .01/23/201 2 1 3 4 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - DM S 0003/02 3 •j±

- xa . i.vxj i 10:1 0 rA A ;jiLi/::ott8l « AWP- 7 [2100 3

Jun e 7 , 2006 , Respondent- s counse l an dth e Regiona l Counse l wer e unabl e c o reac ha mutuall y accepiabl e resolutio n t o th e matter , an daFina l Notic e o f Propose dCiv' l Penalt y wa s issue do n Februar y 12 , 2008 . Th e factua l alJegation s an dcite dregulator y violation s wer e th e sam e i

nth e NOPC Pan dFNOPCP . Responden t requeste dahearin g o n Febtaar y 25 , 2008 . Th e Regiona l Counse l file dih e Con'^plain i i n thi s matte r o n l-^bruary 27 . 2008 ; th e factua l allegation s an dcite dre^ijulaior y vinlation s i n th e Complain t wer e th e sam e a s i nth e FNOPCP . O nMdTc h13 , 2008 , Responden t

move dt o dismis s th e Complain t a s stal e an d moot . Responden t

(erroneously ) claime dth;i l th e NOP( T wa s no t issue dunti l Februar y o f 200 8 an dcLaimed , therefore , tha^ th e factua l alIeg,atioD S (o f act s \r \2005 ) x'^er

e stale . Responden t

als o claime dtha t

th e resignation , o f

Respondent' s president , Mar k Siniih . fro mth e Lo s Angele s Polic e Departmen t (LAPD ) an dth e deat ho f Respondent' s directo r o f operations , Fran k

K.rat::e r i n 200 7 (th e "afitors " cite di n th e Complaint ) serve dl o "'moo t th e issues " an dprejudic e Respondent . AL J Goodwi n denie dtha t motio n o n Apri l 28,2008 . B y N4arch31 . 2008 , Complainan t ha damende dihc

- Complain t 1 0 delet e di e allegation s tha t

th e failure s t o recor dtli e flights b y Mr . iOatze r wer e violation s o f

Sectio n 135.6,'^(a)(4)(vii) . O n Apri l 23 , 2008 , Responden t filedit s Answe r

t o th e Amende d Complaint ; tha i Answe r wil l b e discusse d"

mmor e detai l below . I nth e underlyin g Amende dComplaJTit . th e Administrato r contende dtha t

Su n Ques t faile dt o maintai n record s i n sufficien i detai l t o determin e complianc e with ; th e lligh i tim e limitations , pursuan t T O th e followin g 4 charges :

• Charg e 1 : Respondent' s record s caiegoricall y exclude dthgh t tim e dat a indicatin g whe nafligh t starte dan dende dwithi n apilot' s dut y tim e o r shift , wnic h01/23/201 2 13:4 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - DM S @1004/02 3 Ul/iy/201 2 13:l aFA X 310725681 6 AtfP- 7 [^00 4

mad e Su n Quest' s recor dkeepin g insufficientl y detaile dt o determin e Iligh i tim e limitatio n compliance .

- Charg e 2 : Responden t faile dt o properl y recor d1. 3 hour s o f tligl u trainin g provide dt o acompan y pilo i b y Mark Smit hofSu n Ques t

o n Januar y 24 , 2005 .

. Charg e 3 : Responden t faile dt o properl y recor da1, 5 hou r chec k rid e b;, ' Mr . Smit hgive nt o acompan y pilo t o n Marc h9 , 2005 . < Charg e 4 ; Responden t faile dt o properl y recor dMr . Smith' s 50. 4 hour s o f fligh t tim e o n1 7 dates , durin g Februar y 2005 , ai ; ahelicopte r pilo t for LAPD . It shoul db e note dthat , wit hrespec t t o Charij c 4 , th e NOPCP , Fina l NOPCP , oriijina l Complain t

an dAmende dComplain t al l containe dth e allegation , "Pilo t tim e flov/n by Mr . Smit hfor th e l.AP D constitute s 'othe r comn^crcia l Jlying ' an dmus t b e tracke db

y Su n Quest. " AL J Goodwi nse t

th e heaiin g in thi s matte r firs t fo r Jun e o f 2008 , ihe n fo

r Jul y o f 200S . HoiA^ever, th e partie s entere dint o astipulate dmotio n for continuance , i n whic h the y stated , "Th e parlie s hav e determine dtha t the y ma y b e abl e t o stipulat e t o ih- : fact s in thi s matter , whic hwoul dpromot e judicia l econom y b y requirin g thi s tribuna l l o -i.-^.^es s onl y th e remainin g issue s o f la w i n disput e t'etwee n th e parties. " A hearin g wa s hel do n Januar y 26 , 2009 ; however , th e proceedin g wa s limite dt o th e Partie s an dth e .A.l

_J memorializin g tha t

th e matte r

coul db e decide do n stipulation s an dtria l briefs . Representation s b y counse l for Responden t

al tha t hearin g wil l b e discusse di n mor e detai l below . Th e partie s entere dint o anumbe r o f stipulation s that , ultimately , resulte din th e A y issuin g hi s initia l decisio n withou t an e\Hdentiarv hearin c Th e Stipulate dFact s wer e tile db y Respondent' s counse l o n Jul y 3 , 2009 . Thos e stipulation s wil l b e (lisr.usse d 3,23/201 2 13:4 1 FAX 202493514 2 FA A- DMS @|005/02 1 .>x/±B/^Ui i iJli O l-AX JiU/':;5051b " AffP- 7 ©00 5

i n mor e detai l below . Th e AL J ordere dtrial , briefs , replie s thereto , an d.supplementa l briefs , whic hth e Partie s submitted . (Respondent' s Tria l Brief , daie dAugus t

7 . .^009 , Rcpl y Brief

, date dAugus t

17 , 2009 , an dSupplementa l Brief , date dOctobe r

5 , 2009 ; Complainant' s Tria l Brief , date dAugus t

7 . 2009 , Repl y Brief

, date dAugus t

17 . 2009 , an dSupplementa l Brief , date dSeptembe r

21 . 2009. ) Th e subslanc e o f thos e briit s wil l b e discusse di n mor e detai l below . INITIA LDECISION : In hi s Initia l Decisiuu , AL J Goodwi n mle diha l Su n Ques t violate dCliar/^e ? I an d 3 . bu t no t 2 o r 4 . Wit hrespec t

t o Charg* t

1 , th e AL J i^un dtlvA

V Respondent' s "Lo g Shee t doe s no t recor dwhe nfligh t

tim e (a s oppose dt o dut y time ) begin s an dends,' ' (l.D

- at 3. ) He , thus , foun dth e violatio n o f Sectio n 135.63(a)(4)(vij) . ({.D . at 3. ) Withrespec t

t o Charg e 2 , th e Januar y 24 . 2005 , fligh t (gaining , th e AL J iDundtfi.'i t tha t Mr . Snaitl i ha dno t

perfonnc doihe r

commercia l flyin g a s tha i termi s use di n ih e fligh t an ddut y requirement s o f par t 135 , (l.D . a

t 5. ) H e foun dtha t

Mr . Smit hdi dno t

ac i a s arecjuirc dcrcwmembe r o n tha t flight , reasonin g that :

. . .Su nQue.it' s tligh t

trainin g recor dshow s tha t Capiai n Smit hser-'c da s chec k airma n (Compl . Br, , Exh . C) . H e di dno t tl y th e itircrafr . Sinc e th e trainee-pilo t di dno t wea r aview-limitin g device , Smit hwa s neve r require dto . assum e an y responsibilitie s o f

asol e pilot . A s such , h e wa s no t arequire dcrew-member.. . (l.D . fi t 5. ) Excep t 1 0 th e exten t

tha t th e ALJ foun dMr. ' Smit hwa s no t PI C (se e Stipulate d Fact s N'os . 1 7 a d18 , reproduce dbelow) , hi s findin g o f n o violatio n wasr^o t

inconsisten t wit hth e applicabl e Stipulate dficis , whic hstated , in total : 13

- Th e 1. 3 hour s o f tligh t trainin g wa s no t

recorde do n Mr . Smith' s Su n Ques t fligh t tim e bu t wa s include din hi s dut y tim e recor dfor Januar y 24 . 2005 . 14 : Th e aircraf

t that wa s use dfor

th e flight

trainin g wa s cenific dfo r singl e pilo t operations .

# r 3/201 2 13.4 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ DM S @]OOG/02 i ,'j.f< - iu± - io:i » r.'U . ;jiU/::003it > AWP~ 7 ©00 6

1.5 , Mar k

Smit hwa s o n boar dth( ; aircrdf r durin g th e 1. 3 hou r

llighi . Mi s status , whethe r

a s apilot , cre w o r

otherwise , i s a n issu e o f la w t o b o decide di

n thi s case . 16 . Whethe r

Mar k Smit hwa s apilo t

o r necessar y cre w membe r durin g th e i 3 hou r fligh t i s a nissu e o f

law . 17 . Th e 1. 3 hou r

referre dt o b y tli e AdministraTo r [sic ] wa s recorde dby Mark Smith' s Su n Ques t

dul y tim e record . Th e 1. 3 hour s t o whic hth e Administrato r [sic ] Tefers wer e recorde da s par t o f th e trainin g recor dfo r

th e pilo t in command . 18 . Th e 1. 3 hour s t o whic hth e Administraio r [sic ] refer s wer e recorde da s pa n [of | th e trainin g recor donl y for th e pilot.i n command . A lega l issu e reniiiin s a s l o whethe r o r no t it coul db e recordeda s fligh t tim e b y Mar k

Smith. . H e coviend s tha t h e wa s no t

pilo t i n command . He als o contend s tha t i t coul dno t

recorde da s secon din comman dpilo t becaus e th e airplan e i s asingl e pilo t airplane . (Stipulate dFact s a t

4-5. ) Thus , th e AL J foun dn o violatio n o f Sectio n 135.63(a)(4Kvii ) fo r tha t flight . I mer e singly , ther e wa s n o stipulation—<m e wa y o r th e other—tha t

Mr . Smit hwa s pai dfor

th e Januar y 24 , 2005 , flii;ht . Not-withstanding , th e .A.L J foun^ : tha t

Mi . Smit hwa s pai dfor

tha t flight . (ID . a

t 5. ) Wit hrespec t

t o Charg e 3 , regardin g th e Marc h9 . 2005 . chec k ride flight , th e ALJ foun dtha t

Mr . Smit hha dperforme doihe r commercia l flying . (Id. ) Th e AL J found; Th e circumstanre s o f

th e Marc h9 chec k

ride lea dt o th e opposit e conclusion . A ke y differenc e i s tha t

Captai n Smit hg n thi s flight wa s require dcrewmeni>er . H e wa s th e assigne dcaptai n (Compl . Br. , Exh . D) . /\nothc r critica l facto r

i s that chec k ride s requir e th e traine e pilo t t o hav e vision-reducin g device s in place . Smit hwoul dhav e ha dt o observ e u-afli c whil e th e traine e pilo t wa s "unde r

th e hood. " Smit hthu s attaine dth e statu s o f arequire dcrewmembc r (Cotnpl . Or. , pp . S-9) . Capta mSmit hwa s compensate dfo r servin g a s acrewmember . Th t chee k rid e shoul dhav e bee nlogge da s tligh t time . (Id . A t 6. ) Thus , th e AL J " S fmdin g wa s no t 7ncoasisten t

wit hth e applicabl e Stipulate dFacts , whic hstated , intotal : 20 . Su nQuest' s record s o f pilo t tim e for Mr . Smit honl y reflecte dth e 1. 9 hou r chane r fligh t o n Marc h9 , 2005 .01/23/201 2 13-4 1 FAX 202493514 2 FA A^ DMS 0007/02 1 .^,-v.^^4.«4.orrtj».,;i.uiiuoi>J. o .lYil'- / [2i00 7

21 . Mar k

Smii hwa s aboar dth e aircraf t durin g th e 1. 5 hour s : o whic hth e Administrato r

[sic ] refers , givin g achec k ride. 22 . Mark

Smit hrecorde dal l dut y tim e an dhi s activitie s o n Marc h9 , 2005 , includin g th e chec k

rid e referre dt o i n Ite m21 . (Stipulate dFact s at

5-6 . Tints , th e AL J foun dtha t Responden t

ha dviolate dSectio n J 35.63(a)(4)(vii ) b y no t counting , toward s fligh t tim e limitations , Mr . Smicl":" s givin g o f a chec k ride a s othe r

commercia l /lying . Interestingly , ther e wa s n o stipulation—cm e wa y o r th e other—tha t

Mr . Smitl i wa s pai dfo r th e Marc h9 , 2005 , flii^jhl. Notwithstanding . th e .\L J specificall y foun dtha t Mr . Smit hwa s pai dfor tha t flight . (l.D . at

5 an d6. ) Wit hrespec t

T O Charg e 4 , Mr , Smith' s flying 1 7 flights for th e LAP D durin g th e mont ho f February , 2005 . th e AL J foun dtha t Mr , Smith' s flights i n LAP D helicopter s wer e no t othe r commercia l flying. O n tha i charge , th e .AL J frame dth e argunienr s a s follows ; Complainan t

argue s tha t

Captai n Smith' s LAP D flying constitute d'"othe j commercia l flying " whic hshoul dhav e bee n recorde dby Su n Ques t fo r th e purpos e o f

calculatin g hi s fligh t

tim e limitations . Smit hwa s arequire d crewTnem.ber

an dreceive dpa>'ment . Sinc e Responden t di dno t recor dSmith' s LAP D operations : it s record s wer e "rleficient, " th e agenc y contends . Thi i omissio nconstituie s anothe r violatio ao f

§ I35.63(a)(4)(\ii ) (Compl . Br. , p . S> : Compl . Reply , p . 2) . Responden t counter s tha t

Smith' s tlyin g wa s performe da s a polic e officer . Th e L.APD-owne dan d-operate dheUcopie r wa s properl y considere da''publi c aircraft " exemp t tro mth e ;igency' s reach . (1,D . at 6. ) Th e Stipulate dFact s applicabl e t o Charg e 4 wer e o s follows , i n total : 23 . Su nQuesu; ' fligh t an ddut y tim e record s fo r Mr . Smit hdi dno t

rellec t an y o f it s [sic ] pilo t

tim e fo r th e LAPD . 24 . Mr . Smith' s pilo t flight tim e fo r th e L^.P.D . a s allege di n th e Complain t refer s t o Mr . Smit hpilotin g aPolic e helicopte r owne dan doperate db y th. ? Lo s Angele s Polic e Department . 25 . Lega l determinatio nwil l hav e t o b e mad e a s t o whethe r th e helicopte r

i n questio nwa s a"publi c aircraft " withi n th e meanin g o f 4 9 US C 40102(41HC ) fS^c] .'/2D1 2 13:4 1 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ DM S @]008/02 8 iiUi: : iJ:i yFA X 310725681 6 .\WP- 7 (2100 9

26 . Th e L,AP D ha doperatio n contro l uva r initiating , conductin g o r terminatin g al l night s o f

it s helicopters . (Stipulate dFact s at

6. ) Th e ALJ the n foun dtha i Mr . Smith' s LAP D flight s wer< ; l1ighr. s o f publi c aircraft ; h e als o foun dtha t th e FA A di dno t

hav e th e auiho.rity l o enfor; c arul e tha i require s a

noperato r

t o count , loward s par t

13 5 fligh t

tim e limitation? , fligl^t s o f publi c aircraft . (l.D . a

t 6. ) Interestingly , th e stipulation s o n whic hth e AL J mad r thes e finding s include dn o stipulation—on e wa y o r th e other—tha t

Mr . Smit hwa s pai dfor th e LAP D flights. Perhap s mor e interestingly , tli e AL J conclude dthat , "Al l argument s hav o bee n considered . Thos e no t

expiicitl v addresse di

n thi s Initia l Decisio n ar c denie da s withou t merit.... " (l.D . a

t 7 , emphasi s added. ) Th e .'\LJ reduce dth e civi l penalt y fro m$20,00 0 t o S5,000 . Complaina m appeale dth e ALJ' s decisio n o n Charg e 4 (aii dth e resultan t reductio n i n th e penalty) ; Complainan t

di dno t appea l th e othe r

aspect s o f

th e l.D . Responden t

di dno t appea l an y aspec t o f th e ID . DECISIONMAKER' S DECISION : Th e Administrator , i

nhi. s capacit y a s Decisionmaker , permitte dth e pariic r t o brie f whethe r th e longstandin g FA A imeiprctatio n o f of/tet

- commercia l ;7vm ^ ha dchange do r shoul db e changed , give nstatutor y change s i n th e detinitio n o f

"publi c aircrait. " Se e FA A Orde r

No . 20 1 l- l (Januar y 5 , 2011) . Bothpanic s submitte dbriefs an dreplie s thercito . Complainan t

asserte dtha t

n o statutor y change s justifie dachang e i n th,

- definitio n o f

orfu r commercia l flying . {Sep . discussio n beginnin g at p . 7 o f Complainant' s Supplementa l Brief. ) I n fact . Complainan t recognize dtha t

achang e i n th e definitio n coul db e inappropriat e fo r establishmen t

b y adjudicatio n an dcoul drequir e noticc-and-comracn t

rulemaking , (id , a

t 14-T6. ) Complainant , thus , continue dt n a.sser t 701/23/201 2 13:4 2 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S 0009/02 1

__ - _vj.

- ^~

> . L v r.1- ^ JAVfiOOoi o \*tt

- i [2)00 9

tha t th e interpretatio n oioiJip. r commercialjlyitigin^ y includ e flying i n apubli c incraf : i f th e pilo t wa s pai dfo r

th e flying. (Complainant' s Appea l Brie f at 23. ) I n hi s Decisio n an dOrde r serve dNovembe r

22 , 2011 , th e FA A Administrato r affirme dth e .ALJ' S decisio n I n Su n Quest' s favo r

regardin g th e LAP D flights, "bu t no t fu r th e reason s cite db y th e ALJ. " (Orde r No . 2011-1 3 at

3. ) Th e Decisionraake r decide d tha t ther e wa s n o reaso nt o distur b th e FA A s longstandin g interpretatio n oforhi r commerciaiflying : "an y nonmilitar y flying a s arequire dcrewmember . othe r tha n i n ai r transporration ^ for

whic hth e crewmembe r i, ^ pai dfor hi s o r he r services. " (Id . a

i 6-7. ) Th e Decisiomnake r

als o hel diha i th e FA.A. wa s correc t i n arguin g tlia

i i t ha s juri'jdictio n ove r som e publi c aircraf

t operations . (Id . at

6. ) Th e Decisionmake r stated :

. , -Section s 135.63(a)(4)(vii ) an d135.267(b ) an d(c)(2 ) d o iio i regulat e pubii c aircraf t operations , bu t

instea dregulat e civi l aircraf t operations . Th e F.A.^' s cas e wa s agains t

Su n Qxiest . acivi l operator . Hence , th e FA A wa s no t seekinj ^ t o regulat e publi c aircraf

t o r a n operato r

o f publi c aircraft . Consequently , ther e i s n o nee dt o addres s th e issu e whethe r Su n Ques t

pn^ve dtha t

Smith' s flights for

th e LAP D constitute dpubli c aircraf t flights." (Orde r

No . 2011-1 3 at

6 , fn . 1 0 , emphasi s i n original. ) Instead , th e Decisionmake r foun dtha t

th e recor ddi dno t

contai n 3 siipulLvtio

u o r admissio n tha t

Mr . Smitl i wa s compensate dfor hi s wor k wit hth e LAP D (Id . ai 7. ) Thus , th e Decisionmake r hel dtha t

Complainan t

"di dno t bea r it s burde n o f

provin g compensatio n t o th e pilot , a n elemen t anothe r commercial/lying.' ' (Id . a t 8. ) Th e Decisionmake r

too k judicia l notic e o f

apag e fro mth e LAP D websit e (wwu.lapdonline.of;^) , whic hindicate dtha t th e LAP D does , i n fact , us e voluntee r polic e officers. . (Orde r

No . 2011-1 3 at

8. ) RESPONDENT' S EAJ A APPLICATION : Applican t

claim s tha t

i t i s entiiJe dt o fee s an dexpense s unde r th e HAJA . i?asc d upo n ih e iudiciaJ dispositio n o f clann s 1 , 2 , ;in d4 , as.describe dabove . Th e EAJ A statut e01/23/201 2 13:4 2 FAX 202493514 2 FA A- ^ OM S @|010/02 8 iJL.lV/201- ^ r^i-. mFA X 31072568i e .A"P- 7 EJOI O

at 5 U.S.C . j ; 50 4 an dth e FAA' s rule s a t 1 4 CF Rpar t

14 . ar e clea r

tha t onl y ^preraHin g part y ma y receiv e a

nawar dfor

fee s an dexpense s incuire di n eormectio n wit hth e proceeding . However , th e EA,T Aan dth e rule s d o no t awar dfee s o r

expense s i f

:he positio n o f

th e agenc y ove r

whic hth e applican t

ha s prevaile dwa s snbstaritiall y j'usiified , ot'y f specia l circumsionce s woul dmak e th e awar dsough t unjusi . {See 1 4 CF Ri 14.04(a ) an d(b), ) Applican t

appear s t o clai mthat

it wpj s th e prevailin g part y a s follows :

• Charg e 1 ; Applican t appear s l o clai mtha t

i t wa s onl y i n ''technica l non-compliance' ' withSectio n 135.63(a)(4)cvii ) an dtha t F.A A inspector s ha d previousl y "accepted " it s formfor loggin g pilo t

flight time . Thus , it

claiJn s tha t thes e wer e mitigatin g factors .

• , Charg e 2 : Applican t appear s t o clai mtha t

th e AL J foun dtha t

th e Januar /

24 , 2005 , trainin g flight

coul dno t

b e coi^sideredothe r

commercia l flyirj^ .

• Charg e 3 : I t

i s no t apparen t fromthe . applicatio n wh y Applican t bchcve s i t prevailed .

• Charg e A: Applican t appear s t o clai mtha t

th e ALJ' s decisio n wiil i rcspe^-. t t o Mr . Smit hflying publi c aircraf t operations , an dth e resultan t lega l conclusion , wei e ''affirmed " b y th e Decisionmaker . I t als o appear s t o clai mtha t Complainan t

di d no t establis habasi c elemen t ofcihe r cotnmercia l flying , namel y tha t Mr . Smith wii s pai dfo r

hi s L.A.P.D . flying. Applican t

di dno t submi t an accountin g o f

th e claime d525,200.5 3 in fee s an dexpenses : i t di dstat e tha t

i t woul dpresen t

adetaile dexhibi t

a t ahearin g o f

th e applicatio n •?

r sooner. -01/23/201 2 13:4 2 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ Df-S 0011/02 ! Dl/L'd/JUl Z1J1 9 FA- l 3107256S1 6 ,^WP- 7 tglO n

Fo r th e reason s discusse dbelow , Complainan t submit s tha t

Appliean : w,-.^ no t

a prevailin g party , tha t

Complainant' s position s wer e substantiall y justified , an dtha i iher e ar e specia l circumstance s tha t woid dmak e e

mawar dt o Applican t

unjust . Compiainan l als o submit s tha t

Applicant' s applicatio n i s defective . I . ARGUMENT : A . Applican t

Wa s No t

A "Frevailin g Party " Regardin g Charg e 1 . A s t o Charg e 1 , th e AL J foun dApplican t violate d1 4 CF R^13 5 63(a)( 4 )(vii] : Compiainan l ha s show ntha t Si mQuest'. s record s fu

r it s pilot s d o no t provid e th e iuformatioi v necessar y t o detitmin e oomplianc e wit hth e FAR' S limitatio n o nflight

time . (l.D . a

t 3. ) Accordingly , th e AL J assesse dapenalt y agains t Applicant . In doin g so , th e AL.' . cite d th e safety implication s o f no t havin g asyste mo f

flight an dduty tim e record s fromwhic h th e FA A coul dmonito r

compliance ; th e AL J als o recognize dth e factor s cite da s mitigatio nb y Applicant . (LD . a t 7. ) It i s no t apparen t tha t th e fmding s o f

th e AlJ . whic h Applican t

di dno t appeal , mak e Applican t aprevailin g part y o n thi s charge . Applicant' s violatio nwa s foun dt o hav e "unacccptabl y increase dth e risk tha t pilot s woul doperat e aircraf t withou t sufficien t

rest. " (Id. ) Complainan t submit s tha t

Applican t

i s no r a "prevailin g party " an di s no t entitle dt o attorne y fee s o r expense s unde r

EAJ Afor

Charg e 1 . B . Th e Agenc y Wa s Substantiall y Justifie dI n Pursuin g Actio n Und« r

Charg e 2 , 1 her e ar e specia l circumstance s tha t woul dmak e a n r..AJ. A awar dt o Applican t

fo r th e flmjin g o n Charg e 2 unjust . Sectio n 50 4 o f

th e EAJ A an dpa n 1 4 generall y pcovid e tha t aprevailin g pan y i s entitle dt o fee s an dexpense s unles s th e adjudicativ e office r finds tha t

th e positio r

o f rhe agenc y wa s "substantiall y justified." ' In turn , th e Suprem e Cour t ha s clariflc dtha t

a n

^ 5 U.S. C 5504(aVJ) , l- l CF R^ ^ 14.04 . 1 001/23/201 2 13.4 2 FA X -202493514 2 FA A^ DM S 0012/02 3 01/19/201 2 13:1 9 FAX 310r256«1 8 AlVP- 7 '^01 2

actio n i s "substantiall y justified " whe n an ai^enc y ha da"reasonabl e basi s fo f proceeding/ ' tha t

is . th e basi s ''mus t

bejustifie dt o adegre e tha t woul dsaiisi} ' a reasonabl e person."' * Th e detenninatio no f

"substantia l iuiUincation " encompasse s are^^ew • o f th e entir e proceeding , hi s decide d"o n th e basi s o f th e administrativ e rpcord . a s av^hole , whic hi s mad e i nth e adversar y adiudicaiio n ...'" * An agency' s failur e t o prevai l doc s no t raisL ' a . presumptio no f

alac k o f substantia l justification . I t mus t no t b e assume dthat

th e government' s positio n wa s no t substantiall y justifie dsimpl y becaus e i t los t o n tli o merit s "

' Ko r mus t th e agenc y demonstrat e tha t i t ha dasubstantia l likclilioo do f prevailin u t

o prov e tha t

it s litigatio npositio n wa s substantiall y justified, ^ Court s hav e note dthat , wher e th e underlyin g decisio n agains t a n Agenc y turne d o n a ninterpretatio n o f

aregulation , ''[f]o r

th e agenc y t o prevai l in f asubsequen t

li.AJ A application, ] i t

mus t sho w areasonabl e basi s fo r th e lega l theor y propounded. " B y contrast , th e governmen t canno t sho w substantia l justificatio n i f it s lega l positio n "clearl y offend[ed ] establishe dprcccdem.''' *

1 . Th e FA A Ha dA Reasonabl e Basi s Fo r Propoundin g Tha t Applican t

Ha dFlow aA s PI C A s Allege dUnde r Charg e 2 . Regardin g Charg e 2 , th e Agenc y asserte dtha t Su n Ques t

presiden t

an dchie f

pilo t Mar k Smit hfaile dt o compl y wit hflight dut y tim e limitation s b y providin g fligh t trainin g O n Januar y 24 , 2005 , bu t

di dno t recor dth e tim e a s "fligh t time " o r "othe r commercia l

' Se e Piercr. ^. Underwood . 48 7 U.S . 552 , i6 i (1988) an dMCFR. \4.04(a) : Nee

l v . Administraior. NTS

B Orde r NO . EA-45f7 . D. 5 r, . 6(1996) . •'5U.5.C . g504i:a)(

n •' • Morga n v . Pcn>- . 14

2 F.3 d670 , 685 f3r

dCir. I99S) : Mictiae

l Edvi'ar dWendt. KA

AOrde r 93-9 (Marc

h25 . 1993) . p . 3 . ^Application o

f recurren t training CcniL-

r inc. . 201 1 V/

L30280 . pp. l -2 , citin

g ivtUit^a l Ed^-ar d\\^en4l . FA AOrde r 93-9 . ' .AppHi-'atiQn.O

f Recurren t Trainin g Cente r Inc . ai2. . i:i[in

g V3II6 V ai r service s ln.g. . FA AorJe

i runihcr 95-2 7 (Decembe

r 19 . 199,'>) , pet . fo r rcconsid . denied . FA

A orde r numbe i 96-1 5 (Ma

y "J . 1996 V -Smit hV . NaiionalJIVansPortatio

nSafet y Board . 99

2 F.2 d34 9 (arl i Cir. 1993 } "Se e id . 1 101/23/201 2 13:4 2 M X 2024935U 2 FAf t - DM S ^013/02 3 Ul/Ly/iUii ; l-i-.l V FA l 310725681 6 .\WP- 7 ©01. 1

flying" for

purpose s o f

determinin g fligh t

tim e limitatio n unde r

Sectio n 135.65 . SpccificaUy , th e agenc y argue dtha i becaus e Su n Quest' s flight trainin g recor dli>le dih c traine e a s "Secon din Command" " (se e Complainant' s Tria l Brief , E)chibi t C ) an dCaptai n Smit ha 5 th e •"check

airman " (Id.) . Captai n Smit hha dt o hav e bee n PIC . an dh e wa^ . require dt o lo g suc hPI C tim e a s flight time . (Se e Stipulate dFacts , Numbe r 13- ' 8. ) SpeeifieaJIy : 17 . Th e 1. 3 hou r

referre dt o b y th e Administrato r fsic ] wa s recorde db y Mark Smith' s Su nQues t

du w tim e record . Th e 1. 3 hour s t o whic hth e .^dministrato ^ [sic j refer s wer e recorde da s par t o f th e trainin g recor dfo r

th e nilo l in command . 18 . Th e 1. 3 hour s t o whic hth e Administi-ato r [sic ] refer s wer e recorde da s par t [of j th e trainin g recor dotil y for th e pilo t i n command . .A

. lega l issu e reriiain s a s t o whethe r o r no t it coui db e recorde da s flight tim e b y Mark

Smith . H e cortcnd s tha t h e wa s no t

pilo t in command . H e als o contend s tha t i t coul dno i recorde da s secon di ncomman dpilo t becaus e th e airplan e i s asingl e pilo t airplane . (Emphasi s added. ) Th e AL J rejecte dthi s argument , concludm g tha L"Whil e th e flight

tniimn g recor d list s th e traine e a s "SI C (second-in-command) . Smit hdi dno t thereb y assum e th e rol e o f PIC. " Bu t

th e agenc y -wa

s substantiall y jusiiGed ; i t ha dareasonabl e basi. s fo r proceeding . Someon e ha s t o b e PIC ; an dth e record s li.'itedth e onl y othe r pilo t a s SIC . AppH^^an

i stipulate dtha t

it s o-wi i record s refe r

T O Smit ha s bein g PI C o n tha t trainin g flight. Thus , th e Agenc y reasonabl y conclude diha t Captai n Smit hha dbee n PIC . 2 . Ther e ar e specia l circumstance s thii t woul dmak e a n awar dt o the . Applican t

fo r th e findia g o n Charg e 2 unjust . AS describe dabove . Applicant' s Trainin g Recor dstate dtha t th e traine e \\a s SIC ; Applicant' s record s als o appeare dt o establisl i tha t Mr . Smit hwa s PIC . Th e AL J clearl y stated , i n hi s Initia l Decision , tha t Applicant' s trainin g recor dcontaine dwron g information , i.e. , tiia t

Applicant' s recordkeepin g incorrectl y slate diha t th e traine e wa s SI C whe n h e wa s PIC . Unde r th e circumstance s tha t

th e Applicant' s ow n iceord ^ 1 201/23/201 2 134 2 FA X 202433514 2 FA A - DM S @]014/02 3 01./I0/201 2 10:2 0 FA X 310725681 6 .'VlTP-7 i^'Ol J

establishe dtli c iciiionabl c cvidenliar y basi s fo r Charg e 2 , i t

woul db e unjus t

t o a'.vard fee s an dexpense s unde r EAJ A base do n afinding , essentially , tha t th e Applica mma y benefi t b y faulty recordkeeping . Th e Agenc y shoul dno t b e faulte dfor

this : Applic.^sni' s clai mfor fee s an dexpense s relate dt o Charg e 2 sHoul dh e denied . B . Applican t

wa s no t aprevailia^ r

part y wit hrespec t

t o Charg e 3 , I nit s application . Applican t doe s no t articulat e wh y i t

believe s I

Ti s aprc \ailin g pany . I r merel y describe s th e ALJ' s finding o f violation . (Applicatio n a t 3. ) Applican t di dno t appea l tha i finding, an ddi dno t prevai l wit hrespec t

t o Charg e 3 . C . Th e FA A ha dareasonabl e basi s fo r propoundin g tha t

Sniith' 5 LAP D helicopte r

flight s a s PI C wer e *'othe r commercia l flying/ ' whic hSu n Ques t wa s obligate dt o record , a: ) allege di n Charg e 4 . Ther e ar e circumstance s tha t

woul dmak e a n awar dt o th e Applican t fo r th « tlndiD g o nCharg e 4 unjust . Court s hav e note dthat , eve n i f th e govL'rruiienl' s lega l argumen t i s ullimai.el y rejected , i t

als o ma y mee t

th e "substantia l justification " tes t if'"ther e i: s agenuin e dispute,"' ^ o r

o f it ca nsho w tha t

th e "questio n involve dwa s clos e o r unsettled.""' ^ Here , ther e wer e n o cases , inieipreiaiions , o r opinion s addressin g th e specifi c questio no f

whethe r polic e helicopte r

flight constiiute d'othe r

commercia l flying. " o r wa s an ex^rmp t

publi c aircraft . Su n Quest' s ow n counse l acknowledge dthi s a t th e iniiia l hearing : [Tjh e "'gu t

issue " i nthi s cas e is , I think , there' s neve r bee n acas e deciding ; whethe r th e fligh t

b y apolic e office r

i n ahehcopte r

constimte s flying withi nth e meanin g o f

sectio n 135.'" ' Later , h e stated :

' ' Fierc e ^ S6$ . " ^ Applicatio n Q

T Recurren t

TT^inin g Centa r

Inc . a t 2. . cfrin aEdg e v . Schwejker . Sl 4 F.2 d125 , l.fSC.V d Cir . I9ft7 ) " Tranfcrip t

orH«i:arin g Befor e Administrativ e La w .Judg e Richar dC . Ooodwin , date dJanuar y It: . 2009 . pag e 8 . 1 301/23/201 2 13.4 2 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ DM S ^015/02 ! 01/19/201 2 13:2 0 FA. X 310725681 6 .\Wp- 7 ©01 5

[T]her e ar e n o case s discussin g whethe r o r no t polic e office r

flying fall s withi n th e othe r

commercia l flying rtile s o f th e federa l aviatio n regulations,"'' ' Th e issue' s unsettle dpostur e prompte dth e partie s t o develo p astipulate dstatcmen l oi ~ facts , an dtr y b y ^^-ritie

nbrie f th e remainin g issue s o f law . O n appeal , th e Administrato r ordere dth e parlie s t o furthe r brie f th e unsetiile d issue : "wha t

shoul dno w b e th e definitio n of'othe r commercia l flying"''" ^ Th e Orde r note dtha t

^'neitlier th e statut e no r

th e regulation s defin e th e ter m'othe r commeiciij ! flying.' " an dtha t

lega l interpretation s issue db y th e regulation. s divi.sio n o f th e ofnc e o f th e FA A chie f

counse l di dno t

"directl y addres s th e circumstance s of th e insian i t:asc.~'' ^ Finally , th e Orde r

requeste dth e partie s addres s ""th e origina l inlerpre[aiio n seitint : fort h th e defmitio n of'othe r

commercia l flying/

whic hi s quir e ol dan do n whic hth e othe r interpretation s wer e based , siil l applies , give n change s i n th e statut e an dregulations." " In sum , th e recoi dshow s tha t specifi c maile r

wa s Linsettie dan dth e Agency^

- whil e ultimatel y unsuccessful

— wa s substantiall y justifie din pursuin g it . LCompiainan l h^t

dareasonan>l e basi s fo r propoundin g tha t

Smith': ^ LAP D helicopte r

flight s a s JPIC Her e '*othe r commercia l flyinj;, " whic hSu n Ques t

wra s obligHtc dt o record , a< ^ allege di n Charg e 4 . Complainan t

ha dareasonabl e basi s in fac t an din la w To

r propoundin g iha i Smith' s LAP D helicopte r flights a s PI C were ; othe r commercial/lyi^ig . Th e reasr.nabl e basi s i n la w wa s born e ou t b y th e Decisionmaker' s order . ("Consequently , iher e i s n o nee dl o addres s th e issu e whethe r Su n Ques t

prove dtha t

Smith' s flights for

th e L\r D constitute dpubii c aircraf t flights." (Orde r

No . 2011-1 3 at

6 , fo. 10.) )

'-Id. , pag e 12 . '- ^ Se e FA AOrd^rNo . 20 1 1-1 , Docke t No . CP08WP00004 ; FDM S No . rAA-::00(!-02.1( l Requestin g Fufiht r Briclln g daw dJanuary ' S . 3010 . pag e 2 . '"Id . '- ' Id . 1 401/23/201 2 13:4 3 FA? ( 202493514 2 FA A- DM S 0016/02 3 01/19/201 2 13:2 0 FA l 310725681 6 AWP- 7 Qoi S

'l"h c reasonabl e basi s i n fac t i s addresse db y revie w o f th e whol e record . Contrar y 1 0 th e ALJ'SLD: , Th

e Deci.sionmake r

conclude dtha t

th e ^"F.'^ A simpl y di dno t

bea r it s burde n o f

provin g compensatio n t o th e pilot , an elemen t of'othe r commercia l Hying'. " (Orde r No . 201 1 -1 3 at

8. ) TTi e Decisionmake r

recognize dtha t

an admissio n o r stipulatio n ihn t

th e LAP D pai dSmit hwoul dsuffice . (Id . at 7. ) Compiainan l note s iha i ther e wa s n o evidentiar y hearin g in thi s matter . Th e Stipulate dFact s wer e intende dt o serv e a s aj i integra l par t o f th e record . Becaus< : Applican t

di dno t rais e an y issu e o f

LAP D compensatio n t o Smit hunti l wel l afte r th e Stipulate dfact s wer e finalized, th e Decisionmaker'seonclusio n tha t Complainaji t

'di d no t bea r it s burde n o f

provin g compensatio n t o th e pilot " shoul dno t b e th e basi s t o conclud e tha t

th e Complainan t

wa s no t subsrantiall y jutitific di n fac t t o pursu e Charg e 4 . Comploinati t

submit s th e following . First , a s note dabove . Complainant' s submissions , fro mth e 200 5 NOPCF . throug hth e 200 8 Fina l NOPCP . an dth e 200 ? Complain t an dAmende dComplain r stated : Su n Quest' s lligh t

an ddul y tim e rcc<ird s fo r Mr . Smit hdi dno t

retVc t an y o f hi s pilo t lligh t tim e for th e LAPD . Pilo t fligh t tim e flo^^Ti b y Mr . Smit hfor th e LAP D constitute s "oilie r commercia l flying " an dmus t

b e tracke db y Su n Quest . Becaus e th e FAA' S longstandin g interpretatio n o f othe r commercia l flyin g inducte dth e elemen t tha i th e pilo t

i s pai dfo r

hi s o r he r services , Applican t

wa s o n notic e tha t

th e paymen t o f Mr . Smit hb y th e LAP D coul db e an issu e whe n it receive dth e NOPC Pin 2005 . However , at

n o tim e i n respondin g t o th e 200 5 NOPCP . di d.Applican t rais e an y questio nwhethe r

ther e wa s evidenc e that th e LAP D pai dSmit hfo r th e allege dflights . Second , Applicant' s response s t o th e above-describe dsubniission s di dne t rais e an y questio n whethe r

ther e wa s evidenc e tha t th e LAP D pai dSmith . In .Applicant' s 1 501/23/201 2 13.4 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A- ^ DM S @i0l7/02 ( 01/19/201 2 13:2 0 ¥fl X 310725691 6 .4WP- 7 @0l 7

Motio n t o Dismiss , filedi n2008 , Applican t coul dhav e raise dtha i issue . I t di dnot . eve n though , a s recognize di n th e FAA' s longstandin g interpretatio n o f othe r commercia l flying , establishin g tha t

th e pilo t wa s no t pai dwoul dresolv e tha t a.'^pec t o f ih c Complaini . I nfact . Applican t

onl y raise dUi

c argumen t

tha t Smith' s LAP D flight s wer e publi c aircraf t flight s an dtha t

th e FA A di dno t

hav t th e authorit y t o enforc e arul e t o compe l a par t 13 5 t o lo g it s pilots ' publi c aircraf t tlight^ . Similarly , in it s Answe r

t o th e 200 8 .^mende dComplaini , Applican t state dth e followin g wit hrespec t

t o th e first

allegatio n quote dabove ; Admi t Mark Smith " s flight s for

th e LAP D wer e al l i n Publi c Aircraf t withi n th e meanin g o f

4 9 USC , Sectio n 40102(4 1 )(e ) [sic] . Flight s i n a n L.AJ' D aircraf t wer e n o differen t

tha n i f h e ha dflown a"Wartho g airplan e for th e Ai r Forc e a s -o^

n o f th e Nationa l Guard . Neithe r aWartho g no r

a n LAP D aircraf

t i s aprivat e aircriift . Moreover , Mar k

Smith' s flights mL.\P D helicopter s wer e specificall y approve d b y al l o f th e company' s prio r

Principa l Operation s Inspectors . Indeed , a t leas t on e o f Mr . Smith' s Principa l Operation s inspector s advise dM r Smit htha t

hi: i Hyin g o f an LAP D helicopte r

wa s no t eve n acommerciaJ flight; I t wa s privat e tligh t

i n th e sam e manne r

a s i f h e wa s drivin g apatro l cai." ' (.Answe r l o Amende dComplain t at 3-4. ) Applican t

the n state dIh e followin g wit hrespec t t o th e secon dallegatio n quote dabove : Deny . Th e government' s positio n o n tlii s issu e appear s th e sam e a s i t wa s in 196 6 whe nth e federa l court s rule dagains t it . It i s con&ar

y t o th e expres s definitio n o f 4 9 USC , Sectio n 40l02(aX41)CC) . (Answe r t o Amende dComplain i at 4. ) Th e abov e fro mApplicant' s Answe r reflecte dit s dcfense-'-i n totaJ--t o thc : allegatio n tha t

Smith' s LAP D flight s constitute dothe r commercia l /lying . Applii-in l wa s makin g apurel y lega l argumen t tha t th e F.A<^ . di dno t hav e statutory ' authorit y t o compe l a par t 13 5 operato r

t o lo g publi c aircraf

t flights: b y it s pilots .

'• * W c not*.

- thu i ont - uyul dconstru e Applicant' s alluiicn s L o Nationa l Guar dflight s i naWartho g a.'

i an admissio n tha i Smit hu-a i pai db y th e LAPD . i t undul y stretche s th e imaginmio nt o asse ntha t zm y Nationa l Guar dpilo t

coul db e issignc dx

o M y aWdrtho g withou t

receivin g hazardou s dul y pay . i nadditio nl o thui i usua l Guar dpav . 1 601/23/201 2 13:4 3 FA X 202433514 2 FA A^ DM S 2i018/02 1 01/19/201 2 13:2 0 F.\ I 310725681 6 .\Wp- 7 rglOl S

Third , i nth e hearin g hel do nJanuar y 26 , 2009 , counse l fo r Applican t

di dno t eve n hin t tha t Applican t

dispute dwhethe r

th e LAP D pai dSmit hfo r thos e flights . Fo r example , counse l fo r

Applican t

specificall y recogni7,t dtha t "th e gu t issue'' ' wit h-cspcc t 1 0 Smith' s LAP D flight s wa s alega l issue : whethe r th e fligh t

b y apolic e office r

.- n a helicopte r

constitute s flying withi n th e meanin g o f th e fligln an ddur> ' requiTtLineni s i n par t 136 . (Januar y 26; : 2009 . Hearin g Transcrip t at 7-8. ) Counse l for

Applican t specificall y recognize dtha t th e detinitio n o f

othe r commercia l /lyin g include dih' t elemen t o f paymen t t o th e pilot . (Tr . a

t 9 , 1S. ) Eve n thoug hth e transcrip t clearl y show s tha i counse l fo r

Applican t

wa s give n th e opportunit y t o rais e ai l factua l an dlega l U5\ie s stil l in disput e (see , e.g. , Tr . A t 29-31 , 40 , 43) , h e neve r attempte dt o represen t

l o th e AL. I tha t iher e wa s aquestio n abou t Smit hreceivin g paymen t fro mth e l.AJ^D . Similerly , counse l for

Applican t

di dno t attemp t t o represen t

tha t Complainan t

wa s changin g th e definitio no f

othe r commercial/lyin g l o eliminat e th e elemen t o f paymen t t o th e pilot . Fourth , th e Stipulate dFacts , file do n .lul y 8 , 2009 , similarl y di dno t reflec t tha t ther e wa s an y disput e whethe r th e LAP D pai dSmit hfor thos e flights. I

n fact , a s describe dabov e unde r

Initia l Decision , Stipulate dFact s Nos . 23-2 6 reflecte dApplicant' s no w well-wor n lega l argumen t that th e F.A A di dno t hav e ih e statutor y authorit y l o compe l apar t

13 5 operato r

t o lo g publi c aircraf

t flights b y it s pilots . .Again . Applicant' s postur e wa s tha t

th e lodgin g o f

Smith' s LAP D flights wer e beyon dth e reac ho f th e FA_A.' S authority ; it s postur e ha dnothin g t o d o withnn y questio n whethe r Smit hv-a s pai d fo r thos e flights. It shoul db e note dthat , durin g th e Januar y 2 6 hearing , th e Al J instructe dih e Partie s t o als o identif

y th e issue s o n whic hthi i Panic s coul dno t agre e and , therefore , coul dno t reac hastipulation . (Tr . A t 36. ) I t i s signifrcar. t

tha t th e Stipulate dFact s di d I ?01/23/201 2 13:4 3 FA X 202433514 2 FA A- QM S @]0l9/02 3 01/19/201 2 13:2 0 F.O L 310725681 6 AWP- 7 EgOl O

no t identify

- pavone ml o Smit hb y th e L.AP D a s a n issu e upo n whic hth e Panie s c->ul dno t agree . Fifth , th e ALJ' s orde r fo r th e Partie s t o submi t

tria l briefs for

hi s consideratio n similarl y gav e n o hin t

tha t Applican t

dispute dwhethe r

th e LAP D pni dSmit h Applicanl' s Tria l Brie f

argumen t

regardin g Smith' s LAP D flights i s reproduced---i n it s entirety—-a s follows : I v ha s bee nstipulate dtha t th e helicopte r

whic hMar k

Smit hflew fo r

th e L..^.P.D . wa s a"publi c aircraft."' ^ Th e L.A.P.D . ha doperationa l contro l ove r initiating , conductin g o r

terminatin g al l flights i n iL s helicopters . Excep t

for obviou i necessitie s suc ha s ai r

traffi c separation , th e F.A.A . ha s n o jurisdictio n ove r th e operation , maintenance , us e o r contro l o f

publi c aircraft . Indeed , suc haiicraf t ar c commonl y acquire dformth e militar ' an dd o no t eve n hol dan airworthines s certificate . (Respondent' s Tria l Brie f at 4. ) Ther e wa s n o discussio n o f th e longstandin g defmitio n o f othe r commercia l flying s othe r tha n Applicant' s restatin g tha t th e Complain t

contende d tha t Smith' s LAP D flying wa s withi n th e sc<ipe o f th e detinition . Certainly,.then ; wa s n o accusatio n tha t

Compiainan l wa s aTcempiing l o eliminat e fro mtha t definitio n th e elemen t o f pav-mcnt t o th e pilot . It wa s no t unti l Augus t

17 , 2009—nearl y 6 week s afte r th e Stipulate dFact,* ; wer e finalized, whe n Applican t submitte dit s brie f

i n repl y t o Compiamant' s Tria l Brief—tha t Applican t

eve ntirs l hint s at

an y disput e whethe r

th e LAP D pai dSmithfor hi s flying. (Respondent' s Tria l Repl y Brie f at 9. ) Thi s hin t

wa s asuigl e sentenc e sandwiche dwithi n alength y argumen t

tha t Smith' s LAP D flights wer e flight s o f publi c aircraft , thai tli e FA A ha s n o statutor y authorit y t o regulat e publi c aircraft , tha t th e LAP D helicopter s wer e no t use dfo r "commercia l purposes' " o r transportafio n o f

passengers , an dtha i Complainant' s positio n faile dl o difterentiai e betwee n fligjii/duty tim e assigne dt y th e

' ^ Thi s i s especiall y significan t whe n on e als o note s thia t th e Stipulate dFact s containe dtw o issue'

- o nwhir h th t Panic t "agree d1 0 disagree.• • 5^ ^ Stipulate dFacts , Nos . I S an d25 . " l i was no r

s o ii^ipiijated . Se e Sripulacc dFacts , p . 6 . No . 25 . 1 801/23/201 2 13.4 3 FA X 2024335U 2 FA A ^ QM S ©020/02 ! 01/19/201 2 l.?:2 0 FA X 310725651 6 .\.Vi?- 7 ©02 0

certificat e holde r

an dtim e tha t

th e pilo t independentl y '"does. " (Respondent' s R'^ply Brie f at 7-11. ) Ther « wa s littl e or n o discusnonoflh e longstandin g definitio n oVothar commercial/lying , an dcertainl y n o accusatio n that Complainan t

wa s nnemptin g t o eliminat e hor ntha t

defmitio n th e elemen t

o f paymen t t o th e pilot . Sixth , i t woul db e speculatio n t o conclud e tha t ther e wa s n o basi s for

th e ^LJ' s Januar y 26 , 2010 , Initia l Decisio n tha t th e L.^XP D pai dSmith . I

f th e AL J eve n suspecte d tha t th e issu e o f

paymen t t o Smit hwa s in doubt , h e woul dno t hav e issue dadecisio n i n tha t regard . H e woul dhav e require dtli e Partie s t o clarif y th e recor dbefor e issuin g hi s decision , e.g. , b y schedulin g an evidentiar y hearing . Base do n th e representation s b y Applican t

—o r lac k thereof—th e AL. I reasonabl y conclude dtha t ther e wa s n o disput e o n tha i issue . Funhemiore . i t

i s tellin g tha t

th e ALJ , in hi s Initia l Decision , slate dtha i *"A.! I argument s hav e bee nconsidered . Thos e no l explicitl y addresse din tlii s Initia l D-eisio n ar e denie da s withou t

merit. " (LD . a t

7. ) Complainan t

submit s tha t

th e .^L J considere d Applicant' s ^aigument " tha t "ther e i s no t

an y evidenc e tha t

Mr . Smit hwa s pai dib r th e flight. " (Respondent' s Tria l Repl y Brie f a t 9. ) Base do n th e representation s b y Applicant—o r

lac k ihereof—tli e ALJ reasonabl y foun d.Applicant' s argumen t t o no t hav e nncrit . Seventh , i l shoul db e note dthai , ha drh e Partie s bee n require dt o clarif> ' th e issu e o f LAP D paymen t

t o Smith , Complaican t

wcmldhav e oiTere ddocumentar y "evidenc e tha t Mr . Smit hwa s pai dfor th e [L.A.PD ] fli6ht[s].'" I n fact , tha t documentar y evidenc e wa s provide db y Applicant—i n 2005 . In resjwns e t o ameetin g withth e FA A durin g th e investigatio no f

th e mailer s eventuall y allege di n th e Complaint , Applican t sen t aIcnc r o n it s ow n lertcriicad , date dJun e 6 , 2005 , t o th e Va n Nuys , CA , Fiiah t Standar dDisiric i 1 901/23/201 2 13:4 3 FAX 202493514 2 FA A^ DMS @]02l/02 B Ji/ia/iui. ; iJ::; u fA AJluvi5b8i yAlVP- 7 (2]0-> l

Office . Th e Icilc r

wa s signe db y Mark

Smith . A cop y o f

th e letter , fro mth e YAiC s enforcemen t

investigativ e report , i s attache da s E.\hibi t A . Th e lette r

specificall y state s tha t

LAP D "[pjilot s feceiv e compensatio n a s polic e officers. " (F.xhibi l A , Paragrap hIII. ) Th e lette r undermine s Applicant' s fisscrtio n in 20U y tha t "ther e i s no t

an y evidenc e tha t

Mr . Smit hwa s bein g pai dfor ih e flight. " Th e lette r als o undemiine s Applicant' s speculation , i n replyin g t o Complainant' s Tria l Brie f an din replyin g c

o Complainant' s appea l t o tli e Decisionmake r

Tha i Smit hcoul dhav e bee n actin g a s avolunteer . (Respondent' s Repl y Brief , serve dAugu'i t

17. . 2009 , a t

9 ; Respondent' s Repl y Brief , serve dJanuar y 5 , 20 1 l.a[4.)' ^ 2 . Th e abov e circumstance s mak e a n awar dt o th e Applican t fo r th e findin g o nCharg e 4 clearl y unjust . I nsummary . Applican t

di dno t rais e iiny issu e o f

LAP D paymen t

t o Smithunti l Aug[j,<; i o f 2009 . Tha t

wa s year s afte r

th e NOPC Pi n thi s matte r wei s issue dand , moi e importantly , week s afte r th e Stipulate dFact s wer e finalized. Applica mkne w o f rh e FAA' s longstandin g interpreiatio n o f othe r commercia l /lying ; Applican t kne w tha t Complainan t

wa s no l deviatin g fromit ; i n preliminar y proceedings . Applican t ditl no t rais e th e issu e o f

paymen t t o Smith ; afte r

tilin g o f th e Complaints . Applican t di dno i rais e th e issu e o f

paymen t t o Smit hi n it s Answe r

o r i n it s Motio n t o Dismiss ; th e AL J the n insttucte dApplican t

an dComplaina mt o identif y issue s o n whic hth e Pnitie ? disag i eed , an dth e Stipulate dFact s di dno t reflec t an y disagreemen t

o n th e issu e o f

payme mt o Smith ; rh e .AL

J reasonabl y understood—base do n Applicant' s representation s (or lac k thtjreof)—tha t

ther e wa s n o issu e regardin g paymen t t o Smit han drule daccordingl y i n hi s Initia l Decision ; bothbefor e an dafte r th e Initial Decision , Applican t continue dt

o Indeed , i t i s qui: c possibl e that , ha dther e bee n o n evidentiar y hearin g inthi s niaaer . Applican i \isc\ i woul dhav e offere dth e Jun e 6 , 2005 , leucr . I n it s earlie r

submissions . Applica mattempte dt o ar^u e (somewha t

abstructly ) tha i Smii hwa s pai dfo r bein g npolic e olTicer . no [ fo r bein g apilor . Mr . Snit h exprvss<j s Tha

r argumen t

in th e letter . 2 001/23/201 2 13:4 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ OM S 21022/02 3 01/19/201 2 10:2 1 FA. t 310725681 6 AWP- 7 2102 2

focu s it s defens e o n th e areumenltha i enforcemen t o f Sectio n 135.63(a)(4)(vii ) rbrth e L.API ) flights wa s beyon dth e FA.A' s authority ; Applic^mt wa s awar e ihat . in 2005 . i t provide dalette r

l o th e FA Aadmittin g tha t th e LAP D ha dpai dSmith ; tha t lette r clearl y wa s ''evidenc e tha t

Mr . Smit hwa s paid " (an dwa s no t avolunteer) , notwithstandin g Applicant' s late r

assertion s t o th e contrary . Whethe r th e abov e wa s du e t o Applicant' s erro r o r du e t o it s litigatio n "'sirategy " i s no t dctcrminaiive ; anawar dl o Applican t fo r fee s an dexpense s relate d: o Charg e 4 unde r th e abov e circumstance s woul db e clearl y unjust . D . Su nQuest' s EAJ AApplicatio n i» defectiv e becaus e i t fail s t o compl y wit h1 4 CF Rpar t

]i . Paj t 1 4 o f th e CF Rimplement s th e F.AA' s EAJ Arequirements . Sectio n 14.1 1 require s a n applican i t o includ e wit hth e applicatio n adetaile dexhibi t showin g th e ne t wort ho f th e applican t

an dan y affiliate s wht n th e proceedin g wa s initiated . (1 4 ZV R § 14.11(a). ) Sectio n14.1 2 require s a n applican t t o include : ful l documgniatio n o f

th e fee s an dexpenses , includin g th e cos t o f an y study . analysis , engineerin g rcpon , test , projec t o r simila r matter , fo r

whic ha n .-iwar di s sought . A separat e itemize dstatemen t shal l b e submitte dfo r

eac hprofes.sional firmo r mdividua l whos e service s ar e covere db y th e applic^on , showin. u th e hour s speu l i nconnectio n withth e proceeding s by eac hindividual , adescriptio n o f th e specifi c service s pwrfomicd , th e rat e a t whic heac hfe e ha s bee n computed , an y expense s for

whic hreimbursemen t

i s soughi , th e tota l amoun t claimed , an d th e tota l amoun t

pai do r payabl e b y th e applican t o r b y an y othe r

perso n or entit y fo r th e service s provided . (1 4 CF R§ 14.12 , emphasi s added. ) Th e applicatio ni nthi s maile r doe s no l includ e an y o f th e above . Accordingly , Su n Quest' s EAJ Aapplicatio n her e i s detectiv e an dshoul db e denied .

:: i01/23/201 2 1 3 4 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A. DM S 0023/02 1 01/19/201 2 1.1:2 1 FA X 310725681 6 .\WP- 7 (2;02 3

I LCONCLLfSrON ; Regardin g Charg e 1 , Applican t wa s no t aprevailin g party : th e AL. I foun dtha t Su n Qucs i ha dviolate dth e regulatio n charged . Th e fac t thai th e AL J ma y IIQN- C mitigate dth e civi l penalt> ' amoiui t

doe s no t mea n tha i Applican t

i s aprevailin g part y unde r EA.IA . Regardin g Charg e 2 , Complaman t wa s substanciali y justifie di n fac t an di n la w i n pursuin g thi s charge . It

woul db e imjus t

for .applican t

t o b e awarde dfee s o r

e;^p<:nse s relate dt o thi s charge , inasmuc ha s .Applicani' s ow n record s provide dth e substantia l evidentiar y iustificntio nto r th e charge . Regardin g Charg e 3 . Applica mha s no l articulate deve n an unconvincin g reaso n iha ; i t coul db e considere daprevailin g party . Thus , n o awar dunde r th e EAJ A i s justified . Regardin g Charg e 4 , Complainan t w£is substantiall y justifie di n fac t an din law i n pursuin g thi s charge . Th e Amende dComplain t (an dal l othe r

precedin g agenc y enforcemen t

documents ) clearl y articulate dtha t Smitli' s LAP D flying constitute do/he r commercia l /lying . Complainant , in al l brief ; an dothe r submissions , clearl y state dtha t i t wa s applyin g it: i longstandin g interpretatio n that , inte r alia , th e pilo t

woul dhav e -.

o b e pai d(o r flying for

i l t o constitut e othe r

commercia l /lying . Applican i di dno t rais-r a n issu e o f evidenc e o f

Smit hbein g pai dunti l month s (i n som e case s years ) afte r th e NOPCP , Final NOPCP . Complaints , it s ow n Motio n t o Dismiss , an dit s o^v n An s A'e r wer e filed. Mor e importanily , Applican t di dno t rais e a n issu e o f Smit hbein g pai dunti l week s afte r

th e Stipulate dFact s wer e finalized , eve n thoug hth e AL J instructe d\h t Paniti s t o identif

y unresoWe dissue s i n th e Stipulate dFacts . Th e AL J foun di n hi.- ^ Initia l Decisio n tha i Smit hwa s pai dfo r th e LAP D flights ; h e mad e thi s finding becaus e h e01/23/201 2 13:4 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A- QM S ia024/02 8 01/19/201 2 13-.2 1 FA l 310725681 6 A'fl?- ! Soj- l

reasonabl y believed—base di n larg e par t o n .Applicant' s posturing—tha t ther e wt•.:

^ n o triabl e issu e o f

tac t intha t regard . In 2005 , Applican t itsel f provide ddocumentar y evidenc e t o th e F.^ A tha t th e L.AP D pai dSmith ; i

n Augus t o f 2009 ^ Applican i argue dthai "'there i s no t

an y evidenc e tha t

Mr . Smit hwa s bein g paid.... " Al l th e abov e als o describ e th e specia l circumstance s unde r whic hit woul db e unjus t

t o awar dlee s an dexpenses . Tha t Applican t

wa s awar e of

, an deve n provided , documentatio n o f LAPD' s paymen t

t o Smit honl y emphasize s ho w unjus t an awar dwoul dbe . Finally , tli e applicatio n i s defective , a s measure dagains t th e FA.A-' s tiAJ.-^ . regulafions . It

doe s no t includ e a

n e^Jiibi t of Applicant'. s ne t

worthi n an y detail , an di t doe s no t includ e ful

l documentatio n o f

fee s an dexpense s sought . Accordingly , Su n Quest' s "Applicatio n Fo r Awar dO f

Attorne y Fee s AndOthe r Expense s Pursuan t

T o Th e Equa l Acces s T o Justic e Ac t (E.AJA)' ' shoul db e DENIED . Rcspectfijll y submitted , Naom i Tsud a Regiona l Counse l

Christophe r

1 . Merrill , Attorne y

Carex^W . TcrasaEi , Deput y Regiona l Counse l Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n Western-Pacifi c Regio n La«.Tndale , Californi a Dated : Januar y (9.201 2

7 s01/23/201 2 13:4 4 FA X 202433514 2 FA A. DM S 0025/02 8 01/19/201 2 13:2 1 FA. X 010725681 6 .WP- 7 [2)02 5 

### CoMf^LAiN^N J I s 

# SU N QUES T^^ ^ ^ EzocuMv e Ai rCnarte r Jun e 6,200 5 Insp . DcMariin i Va n Nuy s F.S.D.O . 1650 1 Sherma n Wa y Va n Nuy s Ca . 9140 6 Thi s Ictie r

i s i n respons e t o ou r

meetin g o n Jun e 1 , regardin g th e Icue r o f invcstigaiio n sen t 3/31/05 . In you r

lette r yo u alleg e tha t

o n . i continuin g basi s 1 hav e faile dt o recor d th e commercia l tligh t

tun e whil e actin g a s ahelicopte r pilo t fo r th e Lo s Angele s Polic e Departmen t

(LAPD) . I submi t

tha t m y flight

for th e LAP D i s no t

cotnniercia l in nauir e an dtha t I hav e uo t

recorde dth e flight

tim e a s eonunercia l flight fo r ih e followin g reasons . Natur e o f

flight fo r th e LAPD . Th e flighu conducte dfo r LAP D ar e adirec t

extensio n o f

la w enforcemen t

;£round operation s LE

- aeria l polic e patro l an d.-surveillance . N o passenger s ar e carrie dfor compensatio n o r

hire . Th e aircraf

t i s operate dt o monito r

crimina l activit y e n th e groun dan dsuppor t

othe r la w enforcemen t

relate drequest s wher e an airborn e observatio n platfor mi s needed . Thes e operation s ar e publi c servic e in nature . II Natur e o f

erew ^ Al l pilot s fo r

th e LAP D ar e swo mpolic e officers . Operator s o f LAP D aircrat t mus t hav e aminimiu noj' 5 year s polic e experienc e befor e the y ca n eve n appl y t o operat e polic e aircraft . Pilot s ar e select ^ to r thei r knowledg e an dexperienc e a s polic e officer s no t

o n flight experience . I n fact , severa l o f it s pilot s ha dn o licens e prio r t o selectio n t o th e pilo t positio n b y LAPD . U I Natur e o f

compensatio n Pilot s receiv e compensatio n a s polic e officers . Thei r jo b i s no t

dependan t

o n thei r abilit y t o fly. I f

the y ca n n o longe r

fly o r th e dcpartrricn t

choose s t o eliminat e aircraft , the y ar e stil l employe da s polic e officer s an dwil l continu e l o work for th e departmen t

i n anothe r

capacity .

743 6 Hayvenhyrs t Avenue . Va n Nuys , C A9140 6 Phon e (818 ) 778-652 0 Fa x(818 ) 778-652 6 To U Fre e (800 ) 529-759 5 www.sunquestexec.coi n01/23/201 2 13-4 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A - OM S 0026/02 3 01/19/201 2 13:2 1 FA X 310725681 6 AlVP- 7 :2i02 6

IV FA A Opinio n I n199 8 Su nQuest' s Principa l Operation s Inspecto r Davi dVolke r

(Va n Nuy s FSDO ) advise dtha t

m y flyin g for

th e polic e dcpariinen l wa s no t commercia l flight for th e reasons.liste dabove , ari ddi dno l requir e that I lis t tha i flying a s coirmercia l flight . Eac hadditiona l Principa l Operation s Inspecto r assigne dt o Su n Quest , ha s bee n awar e o f m y occupatio n a s apolic e office r an dth e flying I d o fo

r th e department . No t

recordin g m y polic e flight tim e wa s neve r

questione d althoug hw e hav e undergon e annua l bas e inspection s an drevie w o f compan y documentatio n

A s Chie f Pilo t I a mver y awar e o f

th e F.AA' ^ concer n regardin g dut y time s an dc-e w res t forFARPar t

13 5 Carriers . I at

n o lim e hav e . jve r

allowe dm y fliglit s fo r

th e polic e departmen t

t o adversel y impac t

m y dutie s for

Si mQues t

unde r FA RPar t

135 .

Than k Yo u

;:L'li \ . ; , .it ;01/23/201 2 13-4 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A. DW S @]027/02 i 01/19/201 2 13:2 1 FA T J10725681 6 AW'P- 7 002 7 Certificat e o f

Servic e 1 hereb y certif

y tha t o nthi s dat e 1 hav e sen t b y facsimil e an dplace di n th e Unite d State s mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dmai l - reiu mreceip t requested , ih e execute dorigina l o f th e Complainant' s Repl y Opposin g Respondent' s "Applicatio n for Awar do f

Aucme y Fee s an dOthe r

Expense s Pursuan t

t o th e Equa l Acces s l o Justic e Ac t (EAJA)" , addresse da s follows : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Atm : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Facsimile : (202" » 493-514 2 an dacop y to ; Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwi n Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Depanmeu t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Bldg. , Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Fax : 202-366-753 6 Arthu r Wasserman , Esq . La w Office s o i Wasserma n & Mille r 1638 0 Rosco c Blvd. , Stc . 12 0 Va n Nuys . C A 9140 6 (808 ) 895-067 5 Facsimil e Dated : JA

N1 9 201 2

Jef f Kamber | Lega l Technicia n Offic e o f tli e Regiona l Counse l Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n Western-Pacifi c Regio n Lawndale , Californi a