U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

# REcEIvED

WASHINGTON, D.C.

IN THE MATTER OF Air Medical Resource Group, Inc. Respondent FAA DocketNO. 2014NM070012 (Civil Penalty Proceeding) DMS NO. FAA-2014-0552 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Hearing Date: NOT YETASSIGNED Hearing Location: Salt Lake City, Utah 

## SEP 16 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET

RESPONDENT'S AMENDED ANSWERAND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COMES NOW, Respondent, Air Medical Resources Group, Inc. (hereinafter "AMRG"), by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 209 and Rule 214 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.F.R. §§ 13.209, 13.214) andhereby files the following Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response to the Administrator's Complaint, served onAugust 26,2014. ANSWER 

### I. Section I ofthe Complaint does not contain any allegations requiring a response. 

### II. I. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 1 ofthe 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 beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe remainder ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 2 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 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 andrest periods inthe Flight Vector Flight and Duty Tracker within 24-hours ofthe completion ofeach duty period." AMRG lacks knowledge or information sufficientto form a beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe remainder ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 3 of the Complaint andtherefore, denies same and demands strictproofthereof. 4. AMRG admits only that Gallup Flying Service, Inc. is the holder ofAir Carrier Certificate No. GNMA391E. AMRGlacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth or falsity ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number4 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 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 beliefas to thetruth or falsity ofthe remainder ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 5 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 6. AMRG admits onlythatMr. Ryan Krissman was qualified to act as pilot-in-command for operations conducted by GFS under Part 135. AMRG lacks knowledge orinformation sufficient to form a beliefas to thetruth or falsity ofthe remainder ofthe allegations contained in

2section II, paragraph number 6 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 7. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 7 ofthe Complaint. 8. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 8 ofthe Complaint. 9. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 9 ofthe Complaint. I0. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number I0 ofthe Complaint. II. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 11 ofthe Complaint. 12. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 12 ofthe Complaint. 13. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 13 ofthe 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 ofthe remainder ofthe allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 14 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strictproofthereof. 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 beliefas to the truth or falsity ofthe remainder ofthe allegations contained in



### 3sectionII, paragraph number 15 ofthe Complaint and therefore, denies same and demands strict proofthereof. 16. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 16 ofthe Complaint. 17. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 17 ofthe Complaint. 18. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 18 ofthe Complaint. 19. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 19 ofthe 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 thatpursuantto 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a) and (d), it is subject to a civil penaltynot 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 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 ofprior violations, ifany; (5) the respondent's ability to paythe civil penalty; (6) the effect onthe entity's ability to stay in



### 4business; and (7) other matters asjustice may require. See 49 U.S.C. §4630l(e)(2); See also Folsom'sAirService, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008), p. 11. 2. AMRG relies uponthe affitmative 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 whether the violation was inadvertent or deliberate. 4. In determining the civil penalty amount, the Complainanthas failed to considerthe 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 Order No. 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] 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 nothave the financial ability to paythe proposed civil penalty. 8. The proposed civil penalty would have a detrimental effect on the ability ofAMRG to continue doing business. 9. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) interpretation ofits Federal Aviation Regulations in this case is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse ofdiscretion, 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).

510. 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 FJd 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 in this case is contrary to the regulation's plain language. SeeAdvanta USA, Inc. v. Chao, 350 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 2003), quoting Gardebringv. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415,430,108 S. Ct. 1306,99L. Ed. 2d 515 (1988). See also Trans StatesAirlines, 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 thatthe Complainant lacks substantial basis in law and fact to continueprosecution ofthis 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 RespondentCERTIFICATE 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'sAnswer andAffirmative Defenses addressed to: ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY Federal AviationAdministration 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 sentby electronic mail andby U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, a copy ofthe foregoing addressed to: ONE COPY Jeffrey M. Harper, Esq. Office ofthe Regional Counsel FAANorthwest 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. (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