U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

In the Matter of: Aero Micronesia, Inc. dba Asia PacificAirlines Respondent ) ) FAADOCKET 2012-0469 ) ) FAA CASE NO 2011WP350005 ) ) ) TO: CHIEF JUDGE RONNIE A. YODER MOTION TO STRIKE AND ANSWERTO AMENDED COMPLAINT MOTION TO STRIKE Respondent Aero Micronesia, Inc. d/b/a Asia Pacific Airlines ("Aero Micronesia") hereby moves to strike the Amended Complaint filed by the FAA on June 25, 2012. According to the Order Establishing Procedure, issued May 22,2012, any amendment to the Complaint was to be filed by June 22, 2012. Complainant cannot ignore the Order Establishing Procedure without showing good cause for its delay. Complainant had ample opportunity to file a Complaint based on an alleged violation of §12l.l37(a) but chose to proceed under subsection (b) because through correspondence with FAA counsel Aero Micronesia established that there
was no violation of 14 CFR § l21.137(a) as alleged in the Amended Complaint. Complainant changed the violation to §12l.l37(b) in the Final Notice ofCivil Penalty because there was no basis for a violation of subsection (a), and now, Complainant switches the allegation again because Respondenthas shownthat subsection (b) is inapplicable.



### 1In re AERO MICRONESIA FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0469 FAA CASE NO 2011WP350005 ANSWER In the event that Complainant is permitted to file the Amended Complaint, Aero Micronesia, by and through the undersigned counsel, repeats the allegations below and admits, denies, and alleges as follows inAnswer to the FAA'sAmended Complaint: I. Respondent, Aero Micronesia, Inc. dba Asia Pacific Airline, [sic] Inc., through its President, Michael Quinn, was advised through a Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty dated April24, 2101 [sic], thatthe FAAproposed to assess a civil penalty inthe amount of$6,600.00. OnMay4, 2012, Mr. Quinn submitted a writtenrequest for a hearing. ANSWER: Respondentadmits. II. 1. Aero Micronesia, Inc. d/b/a AsiaPacific Airlines ("Aero Micronesia") is now, and at all times mentionedherein was, the holder ofAir Carrier CertificateNo. 15PA400I, authorized to conductflight operations, cargo only, underpart 121 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs"). ANSWER: Respondentadmits. 2. On or about December 8, 2010, the current versions ofAero Micronesia's "Flight Operations TrainingManual" and "General Operations Manual", contained up throughrevision 9, andrevision 22, respectively. ANSWER: Respondentadmits. 3. Mr. Richard Gaza [sic] was the manager ofAero Micronesia's flight crewmember training at Sanford International Airport, Sanford, Florida. ANSWER: Respondentadmits with the clarification that the correctname of theperson referredto by the FAA is Mr. Richard Gazda. Inforther clarification, Mr. Gazda is notan employee of AeroMicronesia but rather an independent vendorprovidingFAA approved trainingservices to AeroMicronesia. 

### 2In re AERO MICRONESIA FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0469 FAA CASE NO 2011WP350005
4. Mr. Richard Gaza [sic] was furnished with copies ofAero Micronesia's "Flight Operations Training Manual" and "General Operations Manual", revision 9, and revision 22, respectively. ANSWER: Respondentadmits. 5. On or about December 8, 2010, the latest revisions contained inMr. Gaza's [sic] Aero Micronesia's "Flight Operations Training Manual" and "General Operations Manual", were revision 5, and revision 21, respectively. ANSWER: Respondent admits that the latest revisions containedin the "Flight Operations TrainingManual" and "General Operations Manual" shown to the FAA Inspector
on or aboutDecember 8, 2010were revision 5 andrevision 21 respectively. Notwithstanding, on that date Mr. Gazda was inpossession of all the revisions for both manuals andno training was beingconductedatthat time.
III. By reason ofthe foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the following Federal Aviation Regulation (Title 14, Code ofFederal Regulations): 14 C.F.R.§l21.137(a), which states that "[e]ach certificate holder shall furnish copies of the manual
... (and the changes and additions thereto) or appropriate parts ofthe manual to-its appropriate ground operations and maintenance personnel
..."
ANSWER: Respondent denies each and every allegation contained in Part III and ,1pecijically denies that itviolated §121.137(a) of the FederalAviation Regulations or any other provision of the FederalAviation Regulations. As stated in II4 of the AmendedComplaint, Aero Micronesia didfurnish the manual and all changes and additions thereto to Mr. Gazda. These revisions wereprovided byAero Micronesia to Mr. Gazda at the time they were issuedpursuant to the Respondent's establisheddistributionprocedures. 3In re 

### AERO MICRONESIA FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0469 FAA CASE NO 2011WP350005
IV. I. Pursuant to Title 49 U.S.C. Section46301, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty notto exceed $27,500.00 2. Under the facts and circumstances ofthis case a civil penalty of$6,600 is appropriate. ANSWER: Respondentdenies each andevery allegation contained in PartIV



### AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Complainant fails to even state a prima facie case for a violation by the Respondent of § 121.137(a). SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Respondent denies that Complainant has plead, or can show at trial, allegations or evidence sufficient to support the proposed amount of civil penalty sought and Respondent demands strict proof of the amount of any such proposed civil penalty at the hearing of this matter. To the extent the Complainant is able to carry the required burden ofproofas to the civil penalty, Respondent is entitled to a mitigation of the civil penalty based upon the facts and circumstances ofthe case. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The sanction sought by Complainant is unwarranted by the facts, safety in air commerce, the public interest, and is excessive.

4In re AERO MICRONESIA FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0469 FAA CASE NO 2011WP350005 WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests the Chief Administrative Law Judge not enter an order that the Respondent be assessed a civil penalty inthe amount of$6,600.00, or in any amount, the Complaint be dismissed, and any other and further reliefas may be deemed appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,

# ~~~~~~~··· irstein Joann
. Young Lyn seyM. Grunewald Kirstein & Young, PLLC 1750 K StreetNW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006 TEL: 202.331.3348 FAX: 202.331.3933 dkirstein@yklaw.com jyoung({v.vklaw.com lgrunewald@yklaw.cmn Counsel for RespondentAeroMicronesia, Inc. Dated: July 13, 2012

5In re AERO MICRONESIA FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0469 FAA CASE NO 2011WP350005CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that onthis date I have placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, regular mail the executed original Motion to Strike and Answer and faxed one copy of the same, addressed as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl00 FAX: (202) 493-5142
I certify that on this date I have placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, regular mail, a true copy ofthe Motion to Strike and Answer and faxed one copy ofthe same, addressed
as follows:
DonBobertz Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7 PO Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 FAX: 310-725-6816

Dated: July 13,2012

avi irstein Ki tein & Young, PLLC 1750 K Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006 Counsel for Respondent; AeroMicronesia, Inc. The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder Chief Administrative Law Judge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 NewJersey Ave., SE (Ell310) Washington, DC 20590 FAX: 202-366-7536