:'^RTMEN TO F •iSPORWIO N - i i OPERATION S U N - M A M : 3 1 SERVE D JANUAR Y 3 , 201 1 UNITE D STATES DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO

N OFFIC E O FHEARINGS WASHINGTON , D.C . Applicatio n o f RECURREN T TRAININ G CENTER , INC . FA A DOCKE T NO . CPIOGLOOIO , successo r to CP09GL000 8 DM S No . FAA-2010-0973 , successo r t o FAA-2009-097 1 (Equa l Acces s to Justic e Action) INITIA L DECISIO N DENYIN G APPLICATIO N FO R ATTORNEY' S FEE S

AN D OTHE R EXPENSE S 

### Backgroun d Thi s applicatio n unde r

tii e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Act , 5 U.S.C . §504 , originate di n aproceedin g i n whic h th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA " o r "th e agency" ) charge dRecurren t Trainin g Center , Inc . ("RTC " o r "Applicant") , a n Air Agenc y certificate dfo r

a n approve dProvisiona l Pilo t School , wit h violation s of §§141.41(b)(3) , 141.83(a)(1) , an d61.57(d ) o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Regulation s ("FARs") . Th e allegation s originate di n th e natur e of Instrumen t

Proficienc y Check s ("IPCs" ) tha t

th e Applican t

ha dconducte dfo r

tw o pilots . Th e agenc y ha dsough t a civi l penalt y of

$3,850 . Followin g a n ora l evidentiar y hearing , I issue da n Initia l Decisio n ("I.D." ) i n whic h I foun dtha t

th e allegation s ha dno t bee n proven . I dismisse dth e Complain t (^Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n v . Recurren t Trainin g Center , Inc. , FA A Docke t No . CP09GL0008 , Initia l Decisio n of Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dC . Goodwin , serve dAugus t

11 , 2010) . Neithe r

part y appealed . Th e cas e becam e administrativel y final . RT C file da n applicatio n fo r attorney' s fees an dothe r expense s unde r

th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac t ("EAJA " o r

"th e Act") , 5 U.S.C . §504 , an dimplementin g regulation s 1 4 C.F.R . Par t 14 . Th e agenc y answere di n opposition , an dRTC , no w th e Applicant , file dareply . Fo r th e reason s se t

fort h below , 1 den y th e application .

### Standard s

Th e EAJ A require s an agenc y conductin g a n "adversary adjudication " t o awar dfee s an dothe r

expense s t o aprevailin g part y (othe r than th e Unite dStates ) unles s th e positio n o

f th e agenc y wa s "substantiall y justified " o r special circumstance s make an awar dunjus t ( 5 U.S.C . §504(a)(l)) . Th e FAA' s rule s implementin g th e statut e essentiall y trac k it s languag e (^e e §14.04) . Th e burde n o f proo f tha t an awar dshoul dno t

b e mad e rest s withth e agency . 1 4 CF R§14.04(a) . It i s no t dispute dtha t

th e underlyin g civil-penalty matte r constitute dan adversar y adjudicatio n i

n whic h th e Applican t

prevailed . No

r doe s th e agenc y asser t tha t "special circumstances " ough t t o foreclos e afee award . Th e partie s diffe r o n whethe r

th e agenc y wa s "substantiall y justified " in bringin g an d maintainin g th e action . A n actio n i s substantiall y justifie dwhe n i t ha s areasonabl e basi s fo r proceeding . It

mus t b e justifie dt o adegre e tha t woul dsatisf

y areasonabl e person . Pierc e v . Underwood , 48 7 U.S . 552 , 56 5 (1988) ; 1 4 CF R14.04(a) ; Michae l Edwar d Wendt , FA A Order 93- 9 (Marc h 25,1993) , p . 3 ; Nee l v. Administrator , NTS B Orde r No . EA-4517 , p . 5 n . 6,199 6 NTS B Lexi s 104 , p . 5 n . 6 (1997) . 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 ddiffe r a s t o th e appropriatenes s o

f th e conteste daction . Pierc e v. Underwood , p . 565 . Th e determinatio n o

f "substantia l justification " encompasse s arevie w o f th e entir e proceeding . It

i s decide d"on th e basi s o f th e administrativ e record , a s a whole , whic h i s mad e i n th e adversar y adjudication... " 5 U.S.C . §504(a)(l) , "Substantial 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. Unite d Brothertioo do f

Carpenter s an dJoiner s v

. NLRB , 89 1 F.2d1160,116 3 (5 * Cir . 1990) . Failure t o prevai l doe s no t rais e apresumptio n o

f lac k o f substantia l justification . It

mus t no t 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

y Are aPeac e Nav y v. Unite dStates , 91 4 F.2d1224 , 123 1 n . 4 (9 * Cir . 1990) ; MichaeiEdwar dWendt , FA A Order 93- 9 (Marc h25,1993) , p . 3 . Nor mus t th e agenc y demonstrat e tha t i t ha dasubstantia 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>- dCir . 2001) ; Michae l Edwar dWendt , FA A Orde r 93-9 . Th e decisio n in th e underlyin g proceedin g turne do n an interpretatio n o f a regulation . Th e agency' s positio n wa s rejected . For th e agenc y t o prevai l in thi s matter , i t mus t sho w areasonabl e basi s fo r th e lega l theor y propounded . Valle y Ai r Services , Inc. , FA

A Orde r No . 95-2 7 (December

19,1995) , pe t

forreconsid . denied , FA A Orde r No . 96-1 5 (Ma

y 3,1996) ; Smit

hv. Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Board ,• f 99 2 F.2d84 9 (8 * Cir . 1993) . Th e FA A ha s demonstrate dsubstantia l justificatio n i f th e lega l theor y i t advance di s credibl e o r

plausible . Se e jaz z Phot o Corporatio n v . U.S. , 50 2 F.Supp.2 d127 7 (Ct . o f Intl . Trad e 2007) . Eve

n i f th e government' s lega

l argumen t i s ultimatel y rejected , i t

als o ma y mee t th e tes t i f i t ca n sho w tha t

th e questio n involve dwa s clos e o r unsettled . Edg e v

. Schweiker , 81 4 F.2

d125,12 8 (S""" ! Cir . 1987) . 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 dprecedent. " Washingto n v . Heckler , 75 6 F.2d959,961-6 2 (3'-

dCir . 1985) ; Coron av

. Barnhart , 43 1 F.Supp.2 d506 , 511

- 1 2 (E.D.Pa . 2006) . 

### Finding s an dConclusion s I findan dconclud e tha t

th e agenc y ha s sustaine dit s burde n o f proo f It ha s show n tha t

it s actio n in th e underlyin g matte r wa s substantiall y justified . I will den y th e Applicant' s application . Th e agency' s positio n in th e underlyin g matte r reste don it s contentio n tha t 1 4 CF R§61.57(d ) require s an IP C t o tes t fo r all Instrumen t

Ratin g Practical Tes t Standards . Althoug h thi s interpretatio n ultimatel y wa s rejected , i t i s plausible . Th e languag e o

f th e regulatio n refer s t o a"representativ e numbe r o f task s require dby th e instrumen t

ratin g practical test. " Th e agency' s positio n tha t th e "instrumen t ratin g practica l test " standard s thereb y wer e incorporate dint o §61.57(d) , an dthu s wer e all mandatory , i s plausibl y suggeste db y tha t language . Th e parties , moreover , wer e unabl e t o utiliz e preceden t t o hel p formulat e thei r

respectiv e positions . Ther e wa s none . Th e questio n wa s unsettled . Als o supportin g th e agency' s proo f i s th e principle tha t

FA A 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 fulfil l it s mandat e o

f enforcin g an densurin g ai r safety . Manifestly tha t

i s wha t occurre di n thi s matter . Th e agenc y demonstrabl y ha dareasonabl e basi s fo r proceedin g an dseein g th e matte r through . Agains t

thi s background , I findtha t th e agenc y wa s substantiall y justifie di n bringin g an dmaintainin g th e underlyin g action . I conclud e tha t

th e FA A me t it s burde n o

f demonstratin g tha t

i t had substantia l justificatio n unde r th e Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Ac

t t o brin g an dt o maintai n th e underlyin g civil-penalty proceedin g agains t Recurren t

Trainin g Center , Inc .Fo r th e reason s stated , I den y th e application .

Administrativ e La

w Judg e Attachmen

t - Servic e Lis t



# w m

' Thi s decision become s final 3 0 day s afte r it s issuanc e unles s apart

y appeal s o

r the FA A Decisionmake

r take s revie w unde r hi s o r he r ow n initiative . 1 4 CF

R§ 14.28(a) . Th

e appea l must b e eithe r (a) mailedto the Federa l Aviation Administration , 80 0 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Washington , D.C . 20591 , Attention : Hearing Docke

t Clerk, AGC-430 , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building - Suit

e 2W1000 ; or

(b ) deliveredpersonall

y o r vi aexpeditedcourie

r servic e to th

e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 600 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building - Suit

e 2 W1000 , Washington , D.C . 20591 , Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .FA A Docke t No . CP09GL000 8 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Federal 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 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Charle s R , Barnett , III , Respondent' s Counse l 1664 Moorlan dLan e Crystal Lake , I L60014-298 5 TEL : 815-356-864 7 FAX : 815-356-704 2 Brian aMorgan , Complainant' s Counse l Great Lake s Region , AGL-7 M Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 230 0 Eas t Devo n Avenu e De 5 Plaines , I L 60018-469 6 TEL : 847-294-731 3 FAX : 847-294-749 8 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue, S . W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .