RECEfVEO 

AUG- 1 2012 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HEARING DOCKET 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

*********************************************** 

* 

In the Matter of AERO MICRONESIA * 

* 

* 

Respondent. * 

* 

* 

* 

*********************************************** 

FAA Docket No.: Unassigned 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0468 & 0469 

FAA Region: Western-Pacific 

Judge: Ronnie A. Yoder 

COMPLAINANT'S REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE 

To: Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge, and Respondent Aero 

Micronesia. 

The following is Complainant's reply to Responde,nt's July 13,2012 Motion to 

Strike the Amended Complaint. The Complaint was amended simply to change the cited 

violation from 14 C.F.R. §121.137(b) to 14 C.F.R. §121.137(a). The factual allegations 

remain the same ~ essentially that the person in charge of Respondent's training had 

outdate.d manuals. 

Respondent argues that any amendment to the Complaint was to be filed by June 

22, 2012, in accordance with the Order Establishing Procedures. It is true that said Order 

states that "[t]o expedite the hearing in this matter, Complainant and Respondent, on or ' ,' ,_ ' 

before June 22,2012, shall file ... any amendment of the complaint or answer. .. " 

However, the Amended Complaint was filed on June 25,2012, merely3 days beyond the 

date imposed bythe Order. Respondent had not yet tiled an Answer to the original 

Complaint when the Amended Complaint was served. The parties have not yet engaged 

in discovery. The hearing date mutual! y yroposed by the parties is J anuat-y 15, 2013, 

nearly six months away. Thus, acceptance of the Amended Complaint will impart no 
delay to the hearing in this case. It is also noted that 14 C.F .R. § 13.214 permits 

amendments to a complaint not later than 15 days before the scheduled date of a hearing. 

Finally, it is the Administrator's tenet that cases should be decided on the merits 

whenever possible. See Safety Equipment and Sign Co., Ltd., FAA Order No. 92-76, p. 5 

(December 21, 1992). Denial of Respondent's Motion to Strike will allow a decision on 

the merits. 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: a~ _z ~"" DonBo 

Attorney for FAA 

Dated: July 27, 2012 

2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date I have placed in the United States mail, postage 

prepaid, the COMPLAINANT'S REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE, 

addressed as follows: 

And a copy to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 

The Honorable Rmmie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Dept of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E11-31 0 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Also by facsimile: 202-366-7536 

I further certify that on this date I have placed in the United States mail, postage 

prepaid, a true copy of the above, addressed as follows: 

Dated: July 27, 2012 

David Kirstein, Esq. 

Kirstein & Young PLLC 

1750 K Street, NW, Suite 200 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Also by facsimile: 202-331-3933 

(// lflth V/A.h L 

Agnes Ebilane 

Legal Technician 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

Hawthorne, California 

3