U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS REcEIvED 

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 

SEP 1 6 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

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 Rule 214 of the Rules of Practice 

(14 C.F.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. 

I. 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 

of the Complaint. 

9. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 9 

of the Complaint. 

I 0. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number I 0 

of the Complaint. 

II. 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 

of the Complaint. 

III. 

l(a). AMRG denies that it violated 14 C.P.R.§ 135.2l(a). 

l(b). AMRG denies that it violated 14 C.P.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 (1) 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. §4630l(e)(2); See also 

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

2. AMRG relies upon the affitmative 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 
10. 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 FJd 863, 864-865 (8th Cir. 2006); Heath v. SEC, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24128 at 53-55. 

11. 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 FJd 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 11, 2014 

6 

Respectfully submitted, 

regory S. Winton, Esq. 

Jared M. Allen, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 2140 1 

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, 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 

7 

/ ed M. Allen, Esq. 

The Aviation Law Firm 

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway 

Suite 300 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Tel: (301) 294-8550 

Fax: (301) 294-2525