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 14 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 ofthe Rules ofPractice (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 ofthe 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) ofthe 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 beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(a) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 3(b). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(b) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 3(c). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(c) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 3(d). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(d) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 3(e). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(e) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof.

23(f). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(f) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 3(g). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(g) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 3(h). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations containedin sectionII, paragraph number 3(h) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 3(i). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(i) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 3G). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(j) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 3(k). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(k) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 3(1). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(1) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof.

33(m)(i). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(m)(i) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 3(m)(ii). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3(m)(ii) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 4(a). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 4(a) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 4(b). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 4(b) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. S(a)(i)(a). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number S(a)(i)(a) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. S(a)(i)(b). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number S(a)(i)(b) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. S(a)(i)(c). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number S(a)(i)(c) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof.

45(a)(ii)(a). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 5(a)(ii)(a) of the Complaint andtherefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 5(a)(ii)(b). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 5(a)(ii)(b) of the Complaint andtherefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 5(a)(ii)(c). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5(a)(ii)(c) of the Complaint andtherefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 5(b)(i). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations containedin section II, paragraph number 5(b)(i) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 5(b)(ii). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5(b)(ii) ofthe Complaint andtherefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 5(c)(i). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5(c)(i) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 5(

c)(ii). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5(c)(ii) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof.

56(a). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth orfalsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 6(a) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 6(b). MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 6(b) ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 7. MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficientto form a beliefas to the truth orfalsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 7 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 8. MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth orfalsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 8 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 9. MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth orfalsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 9 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. l0. MULTI-AERO lacks lmowledge orinformation sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 10 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 11. MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 11 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof.

612. MULTI-AERO lacks lmowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth orfalsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 12 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 13. MULTI-AERO lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 13 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 14(a). MULTI-AERO denies the allegations as stated in section II, paragraph number 14(a) ofthe Complaint. 14(b). MULTI-AERO denies the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 14(b) ofthe 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 ofthe violations alleged. 3. MULTI-AERO denies that under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil penalty of$44,000 is appropriate. Any other allegations not specifically numbered byparagraph are hereby denied.

7AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. In determining the civil penalty amount, the Complainanthas failed to consider (1) the

nature and circumstances ofthe violation; (2) the extent and gravity ofthe violation; (3) the respondent's degree ofculpability; (4) the respondent's history ofprior violations, ifany; (5) the respondent's ability to pay the civil penalty; (6) the effect onthe entity's ability to stay in business; and (7) other matters asjustice may require. See 49 U.S.C. §4630l(e)(2); See also Folsom'sAirService, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008), p. 11. 2. MULTI-AERO relies upon the affirmative defense ofreasonable reliance. 3. In deten:nilling the civil penalty amount, the Complainanthas 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 ofthe circumstances surrounding the violations. See Folsom'sAir Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008), p. 12; EasternAir 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 OrderNo. 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 onthe ability ofMULTIAERO to continue doing business.

89. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) interpretation ofits Federal Aviation Regulations in this case is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse ofdiscretion, 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 ofits aviation regulations is unconstitutionally vague. See Thomas v. Hinson, 74 F.3d 888, 889 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Trans StatesAirlines, 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 ofits Federal Aviation Regulations inthis case is contrary to the regulation's plain language. See Advanta USA, Inc. v. Chao, 350 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 2003), quoting Gardebringv. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415, 430, 108 S. Ct. 1306, 99 L. Ed. 2d 515 (1988). See also Trans StatesAirlines, 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 reliefrequested may be granted. 13. MULTI-AERO asserts thatthe Complainant lacks substantial basis in law and fact to continue prosecution ofthis 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

9CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date sent via Federal Express, postage pre-paid, an original and one copy ofthe foregoing 

### Respondent'sAnswer andAffirmative 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 ofthe foregoing addressed to: ONE COPY Hon. Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (El1-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 Attn: Patricia Matthews Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov ONE COPY David Kessler Office ofRegional Counsel Federal Aviation Administration 90l 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