10/24/2014 13:25 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 Case NO. 2014WP910076 (Civil Penalty Proceeding) DMSNO. FAA-2014-0551 ADM!NISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Hearing Date: NOT YETASSIGNED Hearing Location: Salt Lake City, Utall
RESPONDENT'S ANSWERAND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO THE AGENCY'S AMENDED COMPLAINT 1410001/0006

COMES NOW, Respondent, Air Medical Resources Group, Inc. (hereinafter "AMRG"), byandthrough undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 209 andRule 214 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.P.R.§ 13.209, 13.214) and hereby files the following Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Agency's Amended Complaint, served on October 15,2014. ANSWER I. SectionI ofthe Complaint does not contain any allegations requiring a response. II. 1. AMRG admits the allegations contained in sectionII, paragraph number 1 ofthe Complaint.10/24/2014 13:25 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts

2. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 2 ofthe Complaint. 1410002/0006

3. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, 

### paragraph number 3 ofthe Complaint. 4. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 4 ofthe Complaint. 5. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5 ofthe Complaint. 6. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 6 ofthe Complaint. 7(a). AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations containedin section II, paragraph number 7(a) ofthe Complaint 7(b). AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 7(b) ofthe Complaint. 7(c). AMRG admits the allegations contained 

### in section II, paragraph number 7(c) ofthe Complaint 8(a). AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 8(a) ofthe Complaint. 8(b). AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 8(b) ofthe Complaint. III. l(a). AMRG denies that it violated 14 C.P.R.§ 120.105. l(b). AMRG denies that it violated 14 C.P.R.§ 120.109(a)(l).

210/24/2014 13:26 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts 1410003/0006

!(c). AMRG denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 120.215(a). 2. AMRG denies thatpursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

### §4630l(a) and (d), 

### itis subject to a civil penalty notto exceed $11,000 for each ofthe violations alleged. 3. AMRG denies that under the facts and circumstances ofthis case, a civil penalty of $34,106 is appropriate. Any other allegations not specifically numbered by paragraph are hereby denied. AFFIRMATIVE 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 ofpriorviolations, ifany; (5) the respondent's abilityto pay the civil penalty; (6) the effect on the entity's ability to stay in business; and (7) other matters asjustice may require. See 49 U.S.C. §46301 (e)(2); See also Folsom'sAir Service, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008), p. 11. 2. AMRG relies upon the 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 Complainanthas failed to determine whetherthe violation was inadvertent or deliberate. 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.

310/24/2014 13:26 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts li!J 0004/0006

5. The proposed civil penalty fails to reflectthetotality ofthe circwnstances surrounding the violations. See Folsom'sAir Service, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 2008-11 (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] shouldbe avoided except nnder the most egregious circumstances." In the Matter of Carr, FAA OrderNo. 1998-2 at 11-12 (March 12, 1998). 7. AMRG does not have the financial ability to paythe proposed civil penalty. 8. The proposed civil penalty would have a detrimental effect onthe ability ofAMRGto continue doing business. 9. The FederalAviation Administration's (FAA's) interpretation ofits Federal Aviation Regulations inthis case is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse ofdiscretion, orotherwise 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, 439F.3d 863, 864-865 (8th Cir. 2006); Heath v. SEC, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24128 at 53-55. IL The FAA's application ofits Federal Aviation Regulations inthis case is contrary to 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. 1306,99 

### L. Ed. 2d 515 (1988). See also Trans StatesAirlines, Inc. v. FAA, 439 F.3d 863, 864-865 (8th Cir. 2006). 12. AMRG asserts thatthe Complainant has failed to state a claimupon which the relief requested maybe granted.

410/24/2014 13:26 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts

13. AMRG asserts that the Complainant lacks substantial basis 

### inlaw and fact to continue prosecution ofthis matter against it Dated: October24,2014



### 5 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: (301) 294-2525 Counsel forRespondent 1410005/000610/24/2014 13:26 FAX 3012942525 Aviation Law Experts 1410006/0006

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'sAnswerandAffirmative Defenses addressed to: ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building, Suite 2W1000 Fax: (202) 493-5142 And, further, that Ihave this date sentby electronic mail and by U.S. Mail, postageprepaid, a copy ofthe foregoing addressedto: ONE COPY Jeffrey M. Harper, Esq. Office ofthe 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 ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov
Dated: October 24,2014

6 

# ~~~~~"!Jjl d M. Allen, Esq. he Aviation Law Firm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Ammpolis, MD 21401 Tel: (301) 294-8550 Fax: (301) 294-2525