09/30/2014 17:23 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON,.D.C.
IN THE MATTER OF Air Medical Resource Group, Inc. Respondent FAA DocketNo. 2014NM070012 (Civil Penalty Proceeding) DMS NO. FAA-2014-0552 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Hearing Date: NOT YETASSIGNED Hearing Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
RESPONDENT'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TOTHEAMENDEDCOMPLUNT 1410001/0007

COMES NOW, Respondent, AirMedical Resources Group, Inc. (hereinafter "AMRG"), by and through undersigned counsel, pursuantto Rule 209 and Rule 214 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.P.R. 

### §§ 13.209, 13.214) and hereby files the following Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response tothe Agency's Amended Complaint, served on September 16, 2014. ANSWER I. Section I ofthe Complaint does not contain any allegations requiring a response. II. I. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section ll, paragraph number I ofthe Complaint.09/30/2014 17:23 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts 1410002/0007

2. AMRG admits onlythat General Operations Manual (GOM), Revision 03-15-13/R-2
was effective from April29, 2013, through August 18, 2014. AMRGlacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity oftheremainder ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 2 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strictproofthereof. 3. AMRG admits onlythat AMRG's GOM, Revision 03-15-13/R-2, at Chapter 4, Paragraph 4.8, states that "Pilots are responsible to ensure they record all commercial flight time and rest periods inthe Flight VectorFlight and Duty Tracker within 24-hours ofthe completion ofeach duty period." AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe remainder ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3 of the Complaint andtherefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 4. AMRG admits only that Gallup Flying Service, Inc. is the holder ofAir Carrier Certiflcate No. GNMA391E. AMRG lacks knowledge orinformation sufficientto form a belief
as to the truth orfalsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 4 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 5. AMRG admits only that Mr. Ryan Krissman was qualified to act as pilot-in-command for operations conducted by AMRG under Part 135. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe remainder ofthe allegations contained in sectionII, paragraph number 5 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 6. AMRG admits only that Mr. Ryan Krissman was qualified to act as pilot-in-command for operations conductedby GFS under Part 135. AMRG lacks knowledge orinformation sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe remainder ofthe allegations contained in

209/30/2014 17:24 FlL' 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts 

### liil 0003/0007

section II, paragraph number 6 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 7. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 7 ofthe Complaint. 8. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 8 ofthe Complaint. 9. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 9 ofthe Complaint. 10. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber I0 ofthe Complaint. 11. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 11 ofthe Complaint. 12. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 12 ofthe Complaint. 13. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 13 ofthe Complaint. 14. AMRG admits onlythat 

### Mr. Wysowski was approved to act as a check airman for AMRG in the BE-90 aircraft. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficientto form a belief
as to the truth or falsity ofthe remainder ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 14 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 15. AMRG admits only that 

### Mr. Wysowski was qualified to act as pilot-in-command for operations conducted byAMRG under Part 135. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficientto form a beliefas to the truth orfalsity ofthe remainder ofthe allegations contained in

309/30/2014 17:24 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts 1410004/0007

section II, paragraph number 15 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 16. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 16 ofthe Complaint. 17(a). AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 17(a) of the Complaint. 17(b). AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 17(b) of the Complaint. 18. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 18 ofthe Complaint. 19. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 19 ofthe Complaint. III. !(a). AMRG denies that itviolated 14 C.P.R.§ 135.21(a). l(b). AMRG denies that itviolated 14 C.F.R. § 135.63(a)(4)(vii). 2. AMRG denies that pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 4630l(a) and (d), it is subject to a civil penaltynotto exceed $11,000 for each ofthe violations alleged. 3. AMRG denies that under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil penalty of $12,000 is appropriate. Any other allegations not specifically numbered by paragraph are hereby denied. 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 ofthe violation; (3) the

409/30/2014 17:24 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts 1410005/0007

respondent's degree ofculpability; (4) the respondent's history ofpriorviolations, ifany; (5) the respondent's ability to pay the civil penalty; (6) the effect on the entity's ability to stay in business; and (7) othermatters asjusticemay require. See 49 U.S.C. §46301(e)(2); See also Folsom'sAirService, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008), p. 11. 2. AMRG relies uponthe affirmative defense ofreasonable reliance. Respondent further asserts that given the facts ofthis case and the entire circumstances, the alleged violations must be dismissed. 3. In determining the civil penalty amount, the Complainant has failed to determine whether the violation was inadvertent ordeliberate. 4. In determining the civil penalty amount, the Complainant has failed to considerthe Respondent's size, particularly in determining the alleged offender's ability to absorb the sanction. 5. Theproposed civil penalty fails to reflect the totality ofthe circumstances surrounding the violations. See Folsom'sAirService, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-1 I (November 6, 2008), p. 12; EasternAir Center, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 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. AMRG does not have the financial ability to pay the proposed civil penalty. 8. Theproposed civil penalty would have a detrimental effect onthe ability ofAMRG to continue doing business. 9. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) interpretation ofits Federal Aviation Regulations inthis case is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse ofdiscretion, orotherwise notin


### 509/30/2014 17:24 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts 1410006/0007

accordance with law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (A); Watkins v. NTSB, 178 F.3d 959,961 (8th Cir. 1999).I0. The FAA's interpretation ofits aviationregulations 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. 11. The FAA's application ofits Federal Aviation Regulations inthis case is contraryto the regulation's plain language. SeeAdvanta USA, Inc. v. Chao, 350 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 2003), quoting Gardebring v. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415,430, 108 S. Ct. 1306,99L. Ed. 2d 515 (1988). See also Trans StatesAirlines, Inc. v. FAA, 439 F.3d 863, 864-865 (8th Cir. 2006). 12. AMRG asserts that the Complainant has failed to state a claim upon which the relief requested may be granted. 13. AMRG asserts that the Complainant lacks substantial basis inlawand fact to continue prosecution ofthis matter against it. Dated: September 30,2014

6 Respectfully submitted,

# .~.zrJ egory S. Winton, Esq. Jared M. Allen, Esq. The Aviation Law Firm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel: (301) 294-8550 Fax: (301) 294-2525 Counsel for Respondent09/30/2014 17:24 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts 1410007/0007

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date sent via facsimile and by U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, an original and one copy ofthe foregoing Respondent'sAnswer andAffirmative Defenses To The Amended Complaint addressed to: ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 Fax: (202) 493-5142 And, further, that I have this date sent by electronic mail and byU.S. Mail, postageprepaid, a copy ofthe foregoing addressed to: ONE COPY Jeffrey M. Harper, Esq. Office ofthe Regional Counsel FAANorthwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 Tel: (425) 227-2161 Fax: (425) 227-1007 Jeffrey.harper@faa.gov ONE COPY The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov Dated: September 30,2014

7 edM. Allen, Esq. The Aviation LawFirm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel: (301) 294-8550 Fax: (301) 294-2525