U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION- '''-^^-t: '• 'MMTlOi\i^. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. '••'•' ^'tP 30 p ^ Q 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AIR AMBULANCE BY AIR TREK, INC. 

Respondent 

FAA DOCKET NO. 2009EA030037 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

DMS NO. FAA- RECEIVED 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SEP 1'9 2011 

NOT YET ASSIGNED UCADl&i^ -^ ^ HEARING DOCKET 

Hearing Date: NOT YET ASSIGNED 

Hearing Location: NOT YET ASIGNED 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

COMES NOW, AIR AMBULANCE BY AIR TREK (hereinafter "AIR 

AMBULANCE"), 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 Complainant's Compliant dated September 2, 2011. 

ANSWER 

1. AIR AMBULANCE admits that it is the registered owner of Cessna Citation Model 550 

aircraft, identification number N744AT, and denies the remainder of the allegations 

contained in paragraph number 1 of the Complaint. 

2. AIR AMBULANCE denies the allegations contained in paragraph number 2 of the 

Complaint. 

3. AIR AMBULANCE admits the allegations contained in paragraph number 3 of the 

Complaint. 
4. AIR AMBULANCE lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph number 4 of the Complaint and 

therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof 

5. AIR AMBULANCE lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

tnith or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraphs numbered 5(a)-(d) of the 

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

6. AlR AMBULANCE lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph number 6 of the Complaint and 

therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof 

7. AIR AMBULANCE lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph number 7 of the Complaint and 

therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

8. AIR AMBULANCE lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegafions contained in paragraph number 8 of the Complaint and 

therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

9. AIR AMBULANCE denies the allegations contained in paragraph number 9 of the 

Complaint. 

10. AIR AMBULANCE admits the allegations contained in paragraph number 10 of the 

Complaint. 

11. AIR AMBULANCE admits the allegations contained in paragraph number 11 of the 

Complaint. 

12. AIR AMBULANCE denies the allegations contained in paragraph number 12 of the 

Complaint. 
13. AIR AMBULANCE denies the allegations contained in paragraph number 13 of the 

Complaint. 

14. AIR AMBULANCE denies the allegations contained in paragraph number 14 of the 

Complaint. 

15. AIR AMBULANCE denies the allegafions contained in paragraph number 15 of the 

Complaint. 

16. AIR AMBULANCE admits the allegations contained in paragraph number 16 of the 

Complaint, 

17. AIR AMBULANCE lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph number 17 of the Complaint and 

therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

18. AIR AMBULANCE denies the allegations contained in paragraph number 18 of the 

Complaint. 

19. AIR AMBULANCE lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph number 19 of the Complaint and 

therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

20. AIR AMBULANCE lacks knowledge or informafion sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph number 20 of the Complaint and 

therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. Furthermore, the allegation 

consists of a legal conclusion which is respectfijlly deferred to the Honorable 

Administrative Law Judge and/or Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 

to decide, if necessary. 
21. AIR AMBULANCE lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the.allegations contained in paragraph number 21 of the Complaint and 

therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

22. AIR AMBULANCE denies the allegafions contained in paragraph number 22 of the 

Complaint. 

23. AIR AMBULANCE denies the allegations contained in paragraphs numbered 23(a)-(e) 

of the Complaint, 

II 

a. AIR AMBULANCE denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. §9l.403(b). 

b. AIR AMBULANCE denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. §91.403(c). 

c. AIR AMBULANCE denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. §9l.403(d). 

d. AIR AMBULANCE denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. §91.7(a). 

IV 

1. AIR AMBULANCE denies that pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §46301 (a)(1) it is liable for a civil 

penalty not to exceed $25,000 for each of the violafions alleged, or, that pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. §46301 (a)(5), it is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000 for each of the 

violations alleged. 

2. AIR AMBULANCE denies that under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil 

penalty of $38,500.00 is appropriate. 

Any matter not specifically admitted by AIR AMBULANCE shall be deemed denied. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

I. AIR AMBULANCE was not the operator of the aircraft in quesfion. 
2. AIR AMBULANCE was not the entity that performed the aircraft maintenance in 

quesfion. 

3. AIR AMBULANCE was not the entity that altered the aircraft in question. 

4. AIR AMBULANCE relies upon the affirmative defense of reasonable reliance. 

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

nature and circumstances of the 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. 

§4630\{e){2); See also Folsom's Air Service, Inc.. FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6, 

2008), p. 11. 

6. In determining the civil penalty amount, the Complainant has failed to determine whether 

the violation was inadvertent or deliberate. 

7. 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 

sancfion. 

8. 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). 

9. Finding mulfiple violations for the same offense would consfitute "'piling on' [that] 

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

Car/-, FAA Order No. 1998-2 at 11-12 (March 12, 1998). 
10. AIR AMBULANCE does not have the financial ability to pay the proposed civil penalty. 

11. The proposed civil penalty would have a detrimental effect on the ability of AIR 

AMBULANCE to continue doing business. 

12. The Federal Aviafion Administration's (FAA's) interpretation of its Federal Aviafion 

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); IVatkins v. NTSB, 178 F.3d 959, 961 

(8th Cir. 1999). 

13. 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. 

14. 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 Gardebringv. 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). 

15. AIR AMBULANCE asserts that the Complainant has failed to state a claim upon which 

the relief requested may be granted. 

16. AIR AMBULANCE asserts that the Complainant lacks substantial basis in law and fact 

to continue prosecution of this matter against it. 
Dated: September 14,2011 

Respect mitted. 

GRE(K2(RW. \\^TON, ESQ. 

They^iatioii Law Firm 

One ResearchXourt, Suite 450 

tockvilte,MD 20850 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax:(301)294-2525 

Greg@AviationLawExperts.com 

Counsel for Respondent 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date served by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, an original 

and one (1) copy of the foregoing Answer and Affirmative Defenses addressed to: 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Room 2014 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

I hereby certify that I have this date sent via facsimile and first class mail a copy of the foregoing 

Answer and Affirmative Defenses addressed to: 

Stephen W. Brice, Esq. 

FAA Eastern Region, AEA-7 

1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Tel: 718 553-3268 

Fax:718 533-5699 

Dated: September 14,201 

Respect bmitted. 

GREGORY S.M^^TON, ESQ. 

TheXviafion Law Firm 

Oot Research Court, Suite 450 

fockville, MD 20850 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax:(301)294-2525 

Greg@AviationLawExperts.com 

Counsel for Respondent