U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

Air Medical Resource Group, Inc. 

Respondent 

FAA Docket NO. 2014NM070012 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

DMS NO. FAA-2014-0552 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Hearing Date: NOT YET ASSIGNED 

Hearing Location: Salt Lake City, Utah 

RECEIVED 

SEP t 6 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO THE AGENCY'S MOTION TO DEEM 

ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, 

STRIKE RESPONDENT'S ANSWER 

COMES NOW, Respondent, Air Medical Resources Group, Inc. (hereinafter 

"AMRG"), by and through undersigned counsel pursuant to Rule 218 of the Rules of 

Practice (14 C.P.R.§ 13.218), and respectfully requests that the Court deny, as moot, the 

Agency's Motion To Deem Allegations Admitted Or, In The Alternative, Strike 

Respondent's Answer. As a result of Respondent's filing an Amended Answer and 

Affirmative Defenses on September 11, 2014, (a copy of which is attached hereto as 

"Exhibit A"), the Agency's present motion has been rendered moot. Therefore, 

Respondent respectfully requests that the Agency's motion be denied. In support thereof, 

Respondent states as follows: 
PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

1. On August 18, 2014, AMRG filed a request for hearing pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 

13.16, concerning the allegations raised in the Agency's Final Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty dated August 6, 2014. 

2. On August 26, 2014, the Agency filed a Complaint. 

3. On August 27,2014, AMRG filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses. 

4. On September 2, 2014, the Agency filed a Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted, or 

in the Alternative, Strike Respondent's Answer. 

5. On September 11, 2014, AMRG filed an Amended Answer and Affirmative 

Defenses. See Exhibit A, attached hereto. 

ARGUMENT 

RESPONDENT'S AMENDED ANSWER MOOTS THE AGENCY'S PRESENT 

MOTION TO DEEM ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED OR TO STRIKE 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER. 

A. RESPONDENT'S AMENDED ANSWER HAS BEEN TIMELY 

FILED. 

Pursuant to Rule 13.214 (14 C.F.R. § 13.214), AMRG properly filed an Amended 

Answer and Affirmative Defenses on September 11, 2014. Rule 13.214, Amendment of 

pleadings, states the following in relevant part: 

(a) Filing and service. A party shall file the amendment with the 

administrative law judge and shall serve a copy of the amendment on all 

parties to the proceeding. 

(b) Time. A party shall file an amendment to a complaint or an answer within 

the following: 

(1) Not later than 15 days before the scheduled date of a hearing, a party 

may amend a complaint or an answer without the consent of the 

administrative law judge. 

2 
(2) Less than 15 days before the scheduled date of a hearing, the 

administrative law judge may allow amendment of a complaint or an 

answer only for good cause shown in a motion to amend. 

14 C.P.R.§ 13.214. 

As set forth by Rule 13 .214(b )( 1 ), a party may amend its pleading without the 

consent of the law judge when the amendment is filed not later than 15 days before the 

hearing date. In the instant proceeding, no hearing date has been set. Therefore, the 

Respondent's Amended Answer was timely filed on September 11, 2014. See Exhibit A, 

attached hereto. 

B. THE AGENCY'S PRESENT MOTION HAS BEEN RENDERED 

MOOT BY THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. 

The Agency's present motion is moot because the Amended Answer supersedes 

the original Answer. "As a general rule, an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the 

original and renders it of no legal effect." Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 

572 (4th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted); see also 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller 

& Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure§ 1476 (2d ed. 1990) ("A pleading that 

has been amended ... supersedes the pleading it modifies .... Once an amended pleading 

is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case .... "). 

Therefore, as the original Answer has been superseded and nullified, there is no 

longer a live dispute as to the responses contained therein. Accordingly, any motion 

concerning the original Answer is now moot. 

3 
CONCLUSION 

In light of Respondent's Amended Answer, AMRG respectfully requests that the 

Honorable Law Judge deny as moot the Agency's present motion to deem allegations 

admitted or strike Respondent's answer. 

Dated: September ll, 2014 

4 

Respectfully submitted, 

""· regory 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 Respondent 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date sent via facsimile and by U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, 

the foregoing Respondent's Opposition To The Agency's Motion To Deem Allegations 

Admitted Or. In The Alternative, Strike Respondent's Answer 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 by U.S. Mail, postage 

prepaid, a copy of the foregoing addressed to: 

ONE COPY 

Jeffrey M. Harper, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

FAA Northwest 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 of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov 

Dated: September 11, 2014 

5 

lien, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (301) 294-2525 
EXHIBIT A 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

Air Medical Resource Group, Inc. 

Respondent 

FAA Docket NO. 2014NM070012 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

DMS NO. FAA-2014-0552 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Hearing Date: NOT YET ASSIGNED 

Hearing Location: Salt Lake City, Utah 

RESPONDENT'S AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

COMES NOW, Respondent, Air Medical Resources Group, Inc. (hereinafter "AMRG"), 

by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 209 and Ru1e 214 ofthe Ru1es of Practice 

(14 C.P.R.§§ 13.209, 13.214) and hereby files the following Amended Answer and Affirmative 

Defenses in response to the Administrator's Complaint, served on August 26,2014. 

ANSWER 

I. 

Section I of the Complaint does not contain any allegations requiring a response. 

II. 

1. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 1 of the 

Complaint. 
2. AMRG admits only that General Operations Manual (GOM), Revision 03-15-13/R-2 

was effective from April29, 2013, through August 18,2014. AMRG lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remainder of the allegations 

contained in section II, paragraph number 2 of the Complaint and therefore, denies same and 

demands strict proof thereof. 

3. AMRG admits only that 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 in the Flight Vector Flight and Duty Tracker within 24-hours of the completion 

of each duty period." AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the remainder of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3 of 

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

4. AMRG admits only that Gallup Flying Service, Inc. is the holder of Air Carrier 

Certificate No. GNMA391E. AMRG 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 of the 

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

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 belief as to the truth or falsity of the remainder of the allegations contained in 

section II, paragraph number 5 of the Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict 

proof thereof. 

6. AMRG admits only that Mr. Ryan Krissman was qualified to act as pilot-in-command 

for operations conducted by GFS under Part 135. AMRG lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remainder of the allegations contained in 

2 
section II, paragraph number 6 of the Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict 

proof thereof. 

7. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 7 of the 

Complaint. 

8. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 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, paragraph number 10 

of the Complaint. 

11. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 11 

of the Complaint. 

12. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 12 

of the Complaint. 

13. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 13 

of the Complaint. 

14. AMRG admits only that Mr. Wysowski was approved to act as a check airman for 

AMRG in the BE-90 aircraft. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth or falsity of the remainder of the allegations contained in section II, paragraph 

number 14 of the Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 

15. AMRG admits only that Mr. Wysowski 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 belief as to the truth or falsity of the remainder of the allegations contained in 

3 
section II, paragraph number 15 of the Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict 

proof thereof. 

16. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 16 of the 

Complaint. 

17. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 17 

of the Complaint. 

18. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 18 

of the Complaint. 

19. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 19 

ofthe Complaint. 

III. 

!(a). AMRG denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 135.21(a). 

!(b). AMRG denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 135.63(a)(4)(vii). 

2. AMRG denies that pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a) and (d), it is subject to a civil 

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

3. AMRG denies that under the facts and circumstances of this 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 (!) 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 

4 
business; and (7) other matters as justice may require. See 49 U.S.C. §46301(e)(2); See also 

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

2. AMRG relies upon the affirmative defense of reasonable reliance. Respondent further 

asserts that given the facts of this 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 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. AMRG 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 of AMRG to 

continue doing business. 

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). 

5 
I 0. 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 Gardebringv. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415,430, !08 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. 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 in law and fact to 

continue prosecution of this matter against it. 

Dated: September II, 2014 

6 

Respectfully submitted, 

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: (30 I) 294-2525 

Counsel for Respondent 
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 of the foregoing Respondent's Answer and Affirmative Defenses 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 2Wl000 

Fax: (202) 493-5142 

And, further, that I have this date sent by electronic mail and by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, a 

copy of the foregoing addressed to: 

ONE COPY 

Jeffrey M. Harper, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

FAA Northwest 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 of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov 

Dated: September 11,2014 

~r1·/k4 ed M. Allen, Esq. 

::v:nLaw Firm 

7 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (301) 294-2525