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 SmyrnaAir Center, by and through undersigned counsel hereby files it answer to the Complaint, pursuant to Rule 208 ofthe Rules ofPractice (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 ofProposed Civil Penaltythat the FAAproposed 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 ofthis manual and its contents will be conducted whenever SAC plans to change its facilities, equipment, orthe scope ofthe 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. TheFAA approved repair station manual states that "a supervisor musthave a copy ofthe currentrepair manual." The manual also states that "itwill bemade 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 ofSAC's repair manual: the director of maintenance has the duty for creatingrevisions to the manual; however, each supervisor and manager ofeach station is responsible for directing the training ofpersonnel undertheirpurview.

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 itviolated Section 145.207(a) and would demand strict proofthereof. b. Respondent admits that Section 145.151(b) directs that a certified repair station mustprovide qualified personnel to plan, supervise, perform, and approve for return to service the maintenance, preventative maintenance, or alterations performedunder the repair station certificate and operations specifications. Respondent denies that itviolated the same and would demand strictproofthereof.

c. Respondent admits that Section 145.15l(d)that a certifiedrepair station must determine the abilities ofits non-certificated employees. SAC denies that itviolated this section and further avers that the experience and skill level ofall hires made within the time frame coveredbythis complaint were assessed in accordance with the applicable law as well as FAA advisorymaterials. d. Admitted that a certified repair station's employee training program must ensure each employee is capable ofperforming 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 stationmust document in a format acceptable to the FAAthe individual employee training required under 145.163(a) but denies ithad violated the same and further avers that it did retainand produce the documents

... in accordance with FAA request. 13. Respondent denies that the subject to a civil penaltypursuant to 49 U.S.C. Sections 46301(a)-(d) becauseithas 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 becausethe applicable statute oflimitations has passed. 49 U.S.C §46301 (d)(7)(C) says that "Except for good cause, a civil action involving a penaltyunder this paragraph maynot be initiated later than 2 years after the violation has occurred". All acts complained ofherein occurred between January 24, 2011 and April14, 2011. No tolling agreements were entered into betweenthe parties. This affirmative defense is based off49 U.S.C §46301 (d)(?)(C) and not 14 C.F.R §13.208 (d). ·i,(_ Respectfully submitted onthe

# fJ__ day ofOctober, 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 viaU.S. Mail and electronic mail to the following: li!Ir. RyanM. Landers, Complaint's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration, Office ofRegional Counsel, ASO-7 SouthernRegion 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 Hon. I.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E-11-310) Washington, DC 20590 Federal Aviation Administration Attention Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC.-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 

## It Onthe

# /1 dayof0ctober,2014.



# -~~v Thomas F. Mmk, II Charles M. Duke William M. Leech, III