U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

RECEIVED 

OCT 2 7 20!4 

HEARING DOCKET 

FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Complaintant, 

v. 

FAA Docket No. 2014-0685 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

SMYRNA AIR CENTER 

Respondent 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

Smyrna Air Center, by and through undersigned counsel hereby files it answer to the 

Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R §13.308), and will show unto 

the Court the following: 

I. 

1. Admitted. Smyrna Air Center was advised through a Final Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty that the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of 

$28,600. Smyrna Air Center has requested this appeal. 

II. 

2. Admitted. 

3. 

a. Denied. Smyrna Air Center's FAA approved repair station manual states that 

a "review of this manual and its contents will be conducted whenever SAC 

plans to change its facilities, equipment, or the scope of the work as reflected 

in the Ops Specs or capabilities list." It does however state that a training 

needs assessment will be conducted annual [sic] to determine the overall 

training needs at SAC as well as individual employee needs. 

b. Denied as stated. The FAA approved repair station manual states that "a 

supervisor must have a copy of the current repair manual." The manual also 

states that "it will be made available to all repair station employees for their 

review and understanding." 
4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

c. Denied as stated. Per section 7 of SAC's repair manual: the director of 

maintenance has the duty for creating revisions to the manual; however, each 

supervisor and manager of each station is responsible for directing the training 

of personnel under their purview. 

a. Admitted. 

b. Admitted. 

c. Denied as stated. 

d. Admitted. 

e. Admitted. 

Admitted. 

Denied. 

Denied. 

Denied. 

Denied 

Denied. 

Denied. 

III. 

Denied 

a. Respondent admitted that a certified repair station must prepare and follow a 

repair station manual acceptable to the FAA, and respondent asserts that it 

followed this regulation and denies that it violated Section 145.207(a) and 

would demand strict proof thereof. 

b. Respondent admits that Section 145.151(b) directs that a certified repair 

station must provide qualified personnel to plan, supervise, perform, and 

approve for return to service the maintenance, preventative maintenance, or 

alterations performed under the repair station certificate and operations 

specifications. Respondent denies that it violated the same and would demand 

strict proof thereof. 

c. Respondent admits that Section 145.15l(d) that a certified repair station must 

determine the abilities of its non-certificated employees. SAC denies that it 
violated this section and further avers that the experience and skill level of all 

hires made within the time frame covered by this complaint were assessed in 

accordance with the applicable law as well as FAA advisory materials. 

d. Admitted that a certified repair station's employee training program must 

ensure each employee is capable of performing assigned tasks, but denied that 

SAC violate this section and further avers that its employee training program 

does in fact assure compliance with the same. 

e. Respondent admits that Section 145.163(c) that a certified repair station must 

document in a format acceptable to the FAA the individual employee training 

required under 145.163(a) but denies it had violated the same and further 

avers that it did retain and produce the documents ... in accordance with FAA 

request. 

13. Respondent denies that the subject to a civil penalty pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

Sections 46301(a)-(d) because it has not violated the same. 

14. Denied. 

Having now answer the complaint, the Respondent further avers and announces these 

affirmative defenses to the Court 

Affirmative Defenses 

15. The complaint should be denied because the applicable statute of limitations has 

passed. 49 U.S.C §46301 (d)(7)(C) says that "Except for good cause, a civil action 

involving a penalty under this paragraph may not be initiated later than 2 years after 

the violation has occurred". All acts complained of herein occurred between January 

24, 2011 and April14, 2011. No tolling agreements were entered into between the 

parties. This affirmative defense is based off 49 U.S.C §46301 (d)(?)( C) and not 14 

C.F.R §13.208 (d). 

·i,(_ 

Respectfully submitted on the fJ__ day of October, 2014. 
Respectfully submitted, 

MINK & DUKE, PLLC 

~·~~ Thomas F. Mink, II, BPR #0 057 

Charles M. Duke, BPR # 23607 

William M. Leech, III, BPR # 30515 

P.O. Box 198742 

Nashville, Tennessee 37219-8742 

(615) 256-0138 

(615) 730-5997 Fax 

tmink@minkdukelaw.com 

mduke@minkdukelaw .com 

wleech@minkdukelaw.com 
~]);.!!:Il!)l~~.IJi: OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing motion was sent via U.S. Mail and electronic 

mail to the following: 

li!Ir. Ryan M. Landers, Complaint's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration, 

Office of Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

Hon. I.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E-11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attention Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC.-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

It 

On the /1 dayof0ctober,2014. 

-~~v Thomas F. Mmk, II 

Charles M. Duke 

William M. Leech, III