U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

IN THE MATTER OF AirMedical Resource Group, Inc. Respondent FAA Case NO. 2014WP910076 (Civil Penalty Proceeding) DMS NO. FAA-2014-0551 ADMINISTRATIVE LAWJUDGE Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Hearing Date: NOT YETASSIGNED Hearing Location: Salt Lake City, Utah 

# RECEIVED SEP 2 9 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COMES NOW, Respondent, Air Medical Resources Group, Inc. (hereinafter "AMRG"), by and throughundersigned counsel, pursuantto Ru1e 209 ofthe Rules ofPractice (14 C.P.R. § ; •["\ 13.209) and hereby files the following Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Administrator'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 allegations contained in section II, paragraph number 1 ofthe r ' l.· ', 11 , ' , 1 ' 

# . Complaint. / '. ,,,, ''i,'

',) ; '2. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 2 ofthe Complaint. 3. AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in sectionII, paragraphnumber 3 ofthe Complaint. 4. AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 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 contained in 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 sectionII, paragraphnumber 7(c) ofthe Complaint 8(a). AMRG denies, as stated, the allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 8(a) ofthe Complaint. 8(b). AMRG admits the allegations contained in section II, paragraphnumber 8(b) ofthe Complaint. III. 1(a). AMRG denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 120.105. 1(b). AMRG denies that itviolated 14 C.F.R. 

### § 120.109(a)(1).

2l(c). AMRG denies that it violated 14 C.F.R. § 120.215(a). 2. AMRG denies that pursuantto 49 U.S.C.§ 4630l(a) and (d), itis subjectto 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 $34,106 is appropriate. Any other allegations not specifically numbered by paragraph are hereby denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES I. In determiningthe civil penalty amount, the Complainant has 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 pay the civil penalty; (6) the effect on the entity's ability to stay in business; and (7) othermatters asjustice may require. 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 whether the violation was inadvertent or deliberate. 4. Indeterminingthe civil penalty amount, the Complainanthas failed to considerthe Respondent's size, particularly in determining the alleged offender's ability to absorb the sanction.

35. 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 Order No. 2008-3 (January 28, 2008). 6. Finding multiple violations for the same offense would constitute "'piling on' [that] shouldbe avoided except underthe most egregious circumstances." In the Matter of Carr, FAA Order No. 1998-2 at 11-12 (March 12, 1998). 7. AMRG does nothave the financial ability to pay the proposed civil penalty. 8. The proposed civil penalty would have a detrimental effect on the ability ofAMRGto continue doing business. 9. The Federal AviationAdministration's (FAA's) interpretation ofits Federal Aviation Regulations inthis 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).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. II. 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 claimupon which the relief requested may be granted.



### 413. AMRG asserts thatthe Complainant lacks substantial basis in law and fact to continue prosecution ofthis matter against it. Dated: September 24,2014 Respectfully submitted,**~·--------7** 

# // /'. ../
. . ...

7 

# /1 I**''-~":tlk··T'l** 1 7**/r:;:;t<.~** Cz:H. ;efegory S. Winton, Esq: ···/ Jared M. Allen, Esq.



### 5 The Aviation Law Firm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel: (301) 294-8550 Fax: (301) 294-2525 Counsel for RespondentCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifythat I have this date sent viafacsimile 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 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 ofthe foregoing addressed to: ONE COPY Jeffrey M. Harper, Esq. Office ofthe Regional Counsel FAA Northwest MountainRegion, 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 NewJerseyAve, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov
Dated: September 24, 2014



# ~ /l **,/'/~''''** .

/,,.,·--·- • -, ., h !



# ··~..



# .~/Cl {YJ



# ~~·VA•t••

**/** /;iittedM. Allen, Esq.

**~;./The** Aviation Law Firm

6 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, MD 21401