DELL'ITALIA, AFFINITO & SANTOLA 

JOHN P. DELL'ITALIA 

DAVID P. AFFINITO t ' 

STACY A SANTOLA 

t Certified by the Supreme Court ofNJ 

as a Civil Trial Attorney * MemberofNJ, NY,PA&FLABars 

via certified mail 

return receipt requested 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

18 TONY GALENTO PLAZA 

ORANGE, NEW JERSEY 07050 

Tel¢phone (973)672-8000 

Fax (973)672-8215 

March 27, 2014 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

RE: JAMES MILLER/ M.T.l. TRAVEL, INC. 

CASE NO. 2013S0950011 

Dear Sir /Madam: 

301 South Livingston Ave, Suite 100 

Livingston, New Jersey 07039 

Telephone (973) 535-8$11 

Fax (973) 672-8215 

; ,{ E C E IV E Deply to Orange 

APR - 1 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

I am enclosing an original and one copy of an Answer from M.T.l. Travel, Inc., in the above 

captioned matter. I hereby certify that all persons on the attached service list have been 

served with this document by my placing same in the US mail on this date. 

DPAbn 

enclosures 

FINITO & SANTO LA 

FINITO, ESQ. 
SERVICE LIST 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Michael F. McKinley, Esq. 

Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Hon. j.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 
DELL'ITALIA, AFFINITO & SANTO LA 

18 TONY GALENTO PLAZA 

ORANGE, NEW JERSEY 07050 

973-672-8000 

IN THE MATTER OF 

M.T.I. TRAVEL, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. (not assigned) 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. (not assigned) 

FAA CASE NO. 2013s0950011 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

APR - 1 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

The Respondent under Certificate Number MT7)175C, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 13.208, 

by way of Answer to the Complaint says, 

1. Admitted as to Paragraph One of the Complaint. 

2. Admitted as to Paragraph Two of the Complaint. 

3. Admitted as to Paragraph Three of the Complaint. 

4. Admitted as to Paragraph Four of the Complaint. 

5. Admitted as to Paragraph Five of the Complaint. 

6. Admitted as to Paragraph Six of the Complaint. 

7. Admitted as to Paragraph Seven of the Complaint. 

8. Admitted as to Paragraph Eight of the Complaint. 

9. Admitted as to Paragraph Nine of the Complaint. 

10. Admitted as to Paragraph Ten of the Complaint. 

11. Admitted as to Paragraph Eleven of the Complaint. 
12. Admitted as to Paragraph Twelve of the Complaint. 

13. Admitted as to Paragraph Thirteen ofthe Complaint. 

14. Admitted as to Paragraph Fourteen of the Complaint. 

15. Admitted as to Paragraph Fifteen of the Complaint. 

16. Denied as to Paragraph Sixteen of the Complaint. 

17. Admitted as to Paragraph Seventeen of the Complaint. 

18. Admitted as to Paragraph Eighteen of the Complaint. 

19. Admitted as to Paragraph Nineteen of the Complaint. 

20. (a) Admitted as to paragraph Twenty of the Complaint, in part and denied 

in part because the Respondent has a reasonable expectation to 

conclude that Lucchese, who was operating as a contractor for M.T.I., 

by the name of Helicopters, Inc. 

(b) Admitted. 

(c) Admitted in part but denied in part because Miller was presented with 

blood test results by Lucchese with the name Helicopters, Inc. 

(d) Agreed as to American Helicopters but Lucchese was also certified 

underthe company, Helicopters, Inc. 

(f) Denied. 

21. Admitted as to Paragraph Twenty-One of the Complaint and complied with 

since Miller was the only employee ofM.T.I. Travel, Inc. 

22. Agreed and complied with since Miller was the only employee of M.T.I. 

Travel, Inc. 

23. Agreed and complied with. 

24. Agreed and complied with. 

25. Agreed to and complied with. 

26. Agreed to and complied with. 
27. 

A. 

B. 

c. 

D. 

E. 

F. 

G. 

H. 

I. 

J. 

K. 

L. 

M. 

N. 

0. 

P. 

(a) Agreed. 

(b) Agreed that the letters were dated as such. 

(c) Agreed as to completion of the Selection Form and complied with 

returning same. 

(d) Denied. 

(e) Agreed and complied with all procedures. 

COUNT TWO 

Denied. 

Denied. 

Denied. 

Denied. 

Denied. 

Denied. 

Denied. 

Denied. 

Denied. 

Denied. 

Denied. 

Denied. 

Denied. 

Denied. 

Denied. 

Denied. 
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. The respondent complied with all F.A.A. Regulations. 

2. Some of the definitions of the Regulations, including employee, contract 

employee, contract employee, contractor, sub-contractor and other 

regulations are void for vagueness. 

3. The applicable definitions are vague and can be interpreted differently by 

different persons and are thus, ambiguous and, therefore, void. 

4. The Regulations to be interpreted by "persons" under this Section are to be 

judged by the reasonable person standard. No person is held to a strict 

liability standard for interpreting regulations which are vague, contrary to 

the traditional meaning of the words; for example. "employees" "contractor" 

and "contract employee". 

No person should be held responsible for interpreting regulations differently 

than the traditional, historical and common understanding of the words, for 

example: "employee" and contractor" as compared to "contract employee" 

and others cited in the definition section, referred to above, and differently 

than can be reasonably read by other persons are thus void for 

vagueness. The Respondent read the definitions of the regulations and 

complied with their traditional meaning. 

CONCLUSION 

WHEREFORE, the Respondent, M.T.I. Travel, Inc., hereby seeks judgment dismissing 

the Complaint in its entirety with prejudice. 

_, .! 

Dated: ) ! 

I 

1/· ,/./ 

,, ' 

i i 

"+~,·' 

DAVID P. AFFtNi!f'o,\~Q. 

Attorney for M:f.I. Travel, Inc.