U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MULTI-AERO, INC. 

Respondent 

FAA CASE NO. 2013CE030017 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0718 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Hearing Date: NOT YET ASSIGNED 

Hearing Location: St. Louis, MO 

RECEIVED 

NOV 1 4 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

COMES NOW, Multi-Aero, Inc., (hereinafter "Multi-Aero"), by and through 

undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 209 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. § 13.209) and 

hereby files the following Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Administrator's Complaint, 

served on October 21, 2013. 

ANSWER 

I. 

I. MULTI-AERO admits the allegation contained in section I, paragraph I of the 

Complaint. 

II. 

l(a). MULTI-AERO admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 

l(a) ofthe Complaint. 
l(b). MULTI-AERO admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 

1 (b) of the Complaint. 

l(c). MULTI-AERO admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 

l(c) ofthe Complaint. 

2. MULTI-AERO admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 2 of 

the Complaint. 

3(a). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(a) of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 

3(b). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(b) of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

3(c). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(c) of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

3(d). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(d) of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

3(e). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3( e) ofthe Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

2 
3(f). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(f) of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

3(g). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(g) of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

3(h). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(h) of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

3(i). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3 (i) of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

3G). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(j) of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

3(k). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(k) of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

3(1). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(1) of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

3 
3(m)(i). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(m)(i) of the 

Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

3(m)(ii). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(m)(ii) of the 

Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

4(a). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 4(a) of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

4(b). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 4(b) of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

S(a)(i)(a). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number S(a)(i)(a) of the 

Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

S(a)(i)(b). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number S(a)(i)(b) of the 

Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

S(a)(i)(c). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number S(a)(i)(c) of the 

Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

4 
5(a)(ii)(a). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5(a)(ii)(a) of 

the Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

5(a)(ii)(b). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5(a)(ii)(b) of 

the Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

5(a)(ii)(c). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5(a)(ii)(c) of 

the Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

5(b )(i). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5(b )(i) of the 

Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

5(b)(ii). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5(b )(ii) ofthe 

Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

5( c )(i). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5(c)(i) of the 

Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

5( c )(ii). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5(c)(ii) of the 

Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

5 
6(a). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 6(a) ofthe Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

6(b). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 6(b) of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

7. MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 7 of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

8. MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 8 of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

9. MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 9 of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

l 0. MULTI-AERO lacks lmowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 10 of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

11. MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 11 of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

6 
12. MULTI-AERO lacks lmowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 12 of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

13. MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 13 of the Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

14(a). MULTI-AERO denies the allegations as stated in section II, paragraph number 

14(a) of the Complaint. 

14(b ). MULTI-AERO denies the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 

14(b) of the Complaint. 

III. 

l(a). MULTI-AERO denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 61.59(a)(2). 

l(b). MULTI-AERO denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). 

l(c). MULTI-AERO denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 91.167. 

l(d). MULTI-AERO denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 119.5(1). 

l(e). MULTI-AERO denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 119.69(d)(3) 

l(f). MULTI-AERO denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 135.223. 

2. MULTI-AERO denies that pursuant to Title 49 U.S.C. 46301 it is liable for a civil 

penalty not to exceed $11,000 for each of the violations alleged. 

3. MULTI-AERO denies that under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil 

penalty of $44,000 is appropriate. 

Any other allegations not specifically numbered by paragraph are hereby denied. 

7 
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. In determining the civil penalty amount, the Complainant has failed to consider ( 1) the 

nature and circumstances ofthe violation; (2) the extent and gravity of the violation; (3) the 

respondent's degree of culpability; ( 4) the respondent's history of prior violations, if any; ( 5) the 

respondent's ability to pay the civil penalty; (6) the effect on the entity's ability to stay in 

business; and (7) other matters as justice may require. See 49 U.S.C. §4630l(e)(2); See also 

Folsom's Air Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008), p. 11. 

2. MULTI-AERO relies upon the affirmative defense of reasonable reliance. 

3. In deten:nilling the civil penalty amount, the Complainant has failed to determine 

whether the violation was inadvertent or deliberate. 

4. In determining the civil penalty amount, the Complainant has failed to consider the 

Respondent's size, particularly in determining the alleged offender's ability to absorb the 

sanction. 

5. The proposed civil penalty fails to reflect the totality of the circumstances surrounding 

the violations. See Folsom's Air Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008), p. 

12; Eastern Air Center, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-3 (January 28, 2008). 

6. Finding multiple violations for the same offense would constitute "'piling on' [that] 

should be avoided except under the most egregious circumstances." In the Matter of Carr, FAA 

Order No. 1998-2 at 11-12 (March 12, 1998). 

7. MULTI-AERO does not have the financial ability to pay the proposed civil penalty. 

8. The proposed civil penalty would have a detrimental effect on the ability ofMUL TIAERO to continue doing business. 

8 
9. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) interpretation of its Federal Aviation 

Regulations in this case is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in 

accordance with law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (A); Watkins v. NTSB, 178 F.3d 959, 961 (8th Cir. 

1999). 

10. The FAA's interpretation of its aviation regulations is unconstitutionally vague. See 

Thomas v. Hinson, 74 F.3d 888, 889 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Trans States Airlines, Inc. v. FAA, 

439 F.3d 863, 864-865 (8th Cir. 2006); Heath v. SEC, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24128 at 53-55. 

II. The FAA's application of its Federal Aviation Regulations in this case is contrary to 

the regulation's plain language. See Advanta USA, Inc. v. Chao, 350 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 

2003), quoting Garde bring v. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415, 430, 108 S. Ct. 1306, 99 L. Ed. 2d 515 

(1988). See also Trans States Airlines, Inc. v. FAA, 439 F.3d 863, 864-865 (8th Cir. 2006). 

12. MULTI-AERO asserts that the Complainant has failed to state a claim upon which 

the relief requested may be granted. 

13. MULTI-AERO asserts that the Complainant lacks substantial basis in law and fact to 

continue prosecution of this matter against it. 

Dated: November 13,2013 

Respectfully submitted, 

GORY S. WINTON, ESQ. 

!>fARED M. ALLEN, ESQ. 

· / The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (866) 568-9886 

JAllen@AviationLawExperts.com 

Counsel for Respondent 

9 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date sent via Federal Express, postage pre-paid, an original and 

one copy of the foregoing Respondent's Answer and Affirmative Defenses addressed to: 

ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

And, further, that I have this date sent by electronic mail and by Federal Express, postage 

prepaid, a copy of the foregoing addressed to: 

ONE COPY 

Hon. Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El1-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Attn: Patricia Matthews 

Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov 

ONE COPY 

David Kessler 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

90 l Locust Street, Room 506 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106 

Facsimile No.: (816) 329-3771 

David.Kessler@faa.gov 

Dated: November 13,2013 

10 

/ ed M. Allen, Esq. 

i /The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (866) 568-9886