U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

IN THE MATTER OF AirMedical Resource Group, Inc. Respondent FAA Docket NO. 2014NM070012 (Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

# RECEIVED SEP

- 2 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET

DMS NO. FAA- NOT YETASSIGNED

### ~ 

## D\1-j

- () 

# SS

# J

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE NOT YETASSIGNED Hearing Date: NOT YETASSIGNED Hearing Location: NOT YETASSIGNED

RESPONDENT'S ANSWERAND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COMES NOW, Respondent, Air Medical Resources Group, Inc. (hereinafter "AMRG"), by aruj thtough undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 209 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.P.R.§ 13.209)and herebyfiles the folloWing'Ariswer. arid :Affitiniltlve**beferis~s<tdthe** Administnitor's Complaint, served on August 26, 2014. ANSWER I. Section I ofthe Complaint does not contain any allegations requiring a response. II. .1. AMRG admits .the a!legat1ons 

### contained iri 

### secticii:iii., 

### ipai-agfajJh nlimbei''torthe Compjalint : ,:,, -- i**~** '2. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 2 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 3. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 3 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 4. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 4 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 5. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 6. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 6 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 7. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 7 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 8. AMRG lacks knowledge orinformation sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 8 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof.

29. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 9 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 10. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficientto 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. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number II ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 12. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 12 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strictproofthereof. 13. AMRG 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. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 14 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 15. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 15 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof.

316. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 16 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 17. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 17 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 18. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 18 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 19. AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 19 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. III. l(a). AMRG denies that it violated 14 C.P.R.§ 135.2l(a). l(b). AMRG denies that itviolated 14 C.P.R.§ 135.63(a)(4)(vii). 2. AMRG denies that pmsuantto 49 U.S.C. 

### §46301(a) and (d), it is subject to a civil penalty not to 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 natme and circumstances ofthe violation; (2) the extent and gravity ofthe violation; (3) the



### 4respondent's degree ofculpability; ( 4) the respondent's history ofprior violations, 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) other matters asjustice mayrequire. See 49 U.S.C. §4630l(e)(2); See also Folsom'sAirService, Inc., FAA Order No. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008), p. 11. 2. AMRG relies upon the affirmative defense ofreasonable reliance. Respondent further asserts that giventhe 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 whetherthe 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'sAirService, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 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 OrderNo. 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 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, or otherwise not in

5accordance 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. 11. 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 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 inlaw and fact to continue prosecution ofthis matter against it. Dated: August 27, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

. ·' ·" / ., ·: I 

# / ·:z**~** i '

.. >

### ~) 

### (J.!J. 

## (bLiFV**/~.** /gory S. Winton, Esq. ( Jared M. Allen, Esq. ' The Aviation Law Firm

6 1997 Almapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel: (301) 294-8550 Fax: (301) 294-2525 Counsel for RespondentCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date sent via U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, an original and one copy ofthe foregoing Respondent'sAnswer andAffirmative 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 2W1 000 And, further, that I have this date sent by electronic mail and by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, a copy ofthe foregoing addressed to: 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 COPYVIA U.S. MAIL Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dated: August 27,2014

# ~/7**~ \~::::,**  

## VV1**/~d** /, ' / Jared M. Allen, Esq. f The Aviation Law Firm 

### •

7 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel: (301) 294-8550 Fax: (301) 294-2525