03/23/201 2 07:2 8 FAX 2024935U 2 FAA - DMS [2lO01/0l4 

xtCEIVEt 

MAR ? ? lAM 

Before the U.S. Department of Transportation u ^ * , ^ ^ ^ 

Federal Aviation Administration nEARj^ Q DOCKP T 

In ihe maUcr uf ) 

) Docket No. CPlOSOOOll 

M & R H8LIC0PTER ) FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

) Judge Richard C Goodwin ^ -,, 

) Hearing Date; January 26-27; 2012 ''^ r^zn"^-

) 

••-••^= D 3 3 

COMPLAINANT SPOST-HEARIN(. BRIEF dD-^ 

Pursuant to ihc June 30, 2011 Amended Procedural Order and ihc February' 21, -^ 

2012 Scheduling Order, Complainant files this Posi-Hearing Brief. 

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

Complainant served M & R Helicopter?;. LLC (''Respondent") with a Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty on July 23, 2010, in the amount of $5,400, tor violations of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs")-' An informal conference was held with 

Rcspondeiu. F.-^ A attorneys, and a represcnlaiivc from the Drug Abatement Division of 

the Office of Aerospace Medicine on October 1, 2010. A Final Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penally was is.siied on October 21, 2010. Respondent requested a hearing on October 27, 

2010 and the Complaint was then filed on November 17, 2010. The Complaint has since 

been amended twice, once on December 10, 2010 to remove certain allegations and 

reduce ihe penalty to $4,400, and again on August 11, 2011-in order tn correct 

typographical errors. 

Respondent filed his Preliminary Objections, which appear to serve as hi.s 

Answer, on November 27, 2010. In his PrclJminar>' Objections, Respondent agreed that 

oS^ 

en 

The specific violations alleged are 14C:.KK. ^§ 135.251(a) and 135.255('b). 
03/23/2012 07 28 FAX 2024335142 FAA . -DMS 2)002/014 

Mr. hdward Baker TTI performed :>afety-sensitive functions for Respondent on July 24, 

2008. (Prelim. Objections at 3). In addition. Respondent agreed in part that Respondent is 

now, and at all limes mentioned in the Complaint was, the holder o f Air Carrier 

Certificate No. MR3A020K, issued under 14 C.F.R. part 119 and with operations 

specifications authorizing it to conduct operations under 14 C.F.R. part 135 o f the FARS . 

Id. at 2. Respondent, however, asserted that it "'has not been able to carry on part 135 

operations since August 2007 " jd. Respondent denied ail of the other allegations listed in 

the Complaint. 

On Miirch 25, 2U11, a conference call was held among Chief Administrative Law 

Judge Yoder, Complainant and Respondent. On May 27, 2011, Complainant tiled its Prehearing Brief in accordance with Judge Yoder's direction. On June 3, 2011, Respondent 

tiled its Reply to Complainant's Brief. These proceedings were rc-assigned to Judge 

Goodwin on June 10, 2011. On August 2, 2011, Complainant filed a Motion to Compel 

Discoverv'. In response, on August 15, 2011 Judge Goodwin ."served upon Respondent an 

Order to Respondent to Show Cause. On August 25, 2011, Respondent filed his Reply to 

ihe Order to Show Cause. On September 29, 2011. Judge Goodwin .served an Order 

finding that because Respondent failed to file adequate responses to the issues raised in 

the Order to Respondent to Show Cause, Respondent ''wili be foreclosed ar the hearing 

from offering or relying upon any documents, or any information contained in them, or 

any witnesses, regarding which it has failed lu noiice in response to Complainant's 

discovery request." (Order Sanctioning Resp't at I). Respondent .subsequently filed a 

Motion for Reconsideration on October 3. 2011, which Judge Goodwin denied in his 

Order Denying Respondent's Motion filed on October 18, 2011, 
03/23/201 2 07-2 9 F^X 2024935142 FAA - DMS 0)003/01 4 

On November 15, 2011, Complainant filed aMotion for Decision. On 

December I, 2011, Respondent filed a Brief Supporting the Motion for Decision to 

Dismiss Complaint. On December 5. 2011, Judge Goodwin issued an Order Denying 

Motions. 

On January 26-27, 2012, a hearing for this matter was held in Easton, PA before 

Judge Goodwin. On Fcbruaty 21, 2012, ,ludge Goodwin issued an Order Setting Out 

Briefing Schedule. 

TI. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Respondent is the holder of Air Carrier Certificate No. MR3A020K, issued under 

14 C.K.R. part 119 and with operations specifications authorizing it to conduct operations 

under 14 C.F.R. part 135 of the h'ARs. (T.xh. A-F). Respondent in tis operations 

specifications certified that ii would comply with the requirements of 14 C.F.R part 121, 

Appendices 1 and J and 49 C.F.R. part 40 for it.s Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention 

Program. ("Exh. A-2). On July 21 and 23, 2009. the FAA conducted an inspection of 

Respondent's DOT-rcquired drug and alcohol testing programs. ('Exh. A-7'1. During the 

investigation, it was diicovercd that on July 24, 2008, safety-sensitive maintenance work 

was performed on Respondent's aircraft (N98CM) which was listed on Respondent's part 

135 operations specifications. fHxh. A-4: Fxh. A-3: Tr. 87; 3-10:227: 18-22). This 

maintenance was performed by Edward Baker III. (Exh. A-4: Tr. 87-8; 18-10). Mr. 

Baker, who is employed by Air Methods, performed this work for Respondent in his 

capacity as an ^'independent contractor." (Tr. 228; 2-8). Mr. Baker perfonned the work 

directly for Respondent. Id. Mr. Baker was not included in Respondent's random drug 

and alcohol lesting pools. fExh. A-6: Tr. 228-9: 22-3). Mr. Baker did not have his own 
03/23/201 2 07:2 8 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS 01004/014 

DOT-requircd drug or alcohol testing programs. (Tr. 204: 11-13, 228: 18-20). Mr. Baker 

did not perform the work On Respondent's aircraft on behalf of cither Air Methods or the 

Air National Guard. (Tr. 228: 2-8). Respondent's Air Carrier Certificate No. 

MR3A020K, issued under 14 C.F.K. part t J9 with operations specifications authorizing 

it to conduct operations under 14 C.F.R. part 135 of the FARS, was active ar the time of 

the violaiion. at the time of the inspection, and continued to be active as of November 29, 

2011. (Tr. 164-5: 18-5; 165:21-22: 168; 9-15; 333-4: 14-20). At the hearing Respondent 

did not lesiify under oath in support of his case. He introduced seven e.\iiibils and 

oihcrwise relied upon only direct examination of Mr. Baker and cross-examination of 

Complainant's witnesses 

III. ARGUMENT 

A preponderance of the reliable and credible evidence supports that Respondent 

violated 14 C.F.R. §§ 135.251(a) and 135.255(b) because an employee of Respondent 

who perfonned safety-sensitive work on the aircraft listed on Respondent's pan 135 

operations specifications was not subject to DOT-required random drug or alcohol testing 

in aeeordance with 14 CF.R. part 121, Appendices I and J. 

A. On or About June 24, 2008, M r Baker Performed Safety-Sensitive Work for 

Respondent and Was Therefore Required to be Subject to DOT-Requircd 

Drug and Alcohol Testing 

On June 24, 2008, Mr. Baker as a contractor working for Respondent performed 

safety-sensitive maintenance or preventive maintenance on aircraft (N98CM) which was 

the aircraft listed oh Respondent's operations specificaiions. He was therefore required to 

be subject to DOT-required drug and alcohol testing. Under ]4 C.F.R, part 121, 

Appendix 1, § 111. an employee who performs aircraft maintenance and preventive 

~ Unles.i otherwise noted, all citations arc to the regulations in effect In 20O8. 
03/23/201 2 07:2 9 FAX 2024935142 FAA . DHS ©005/01 4 

maintenance duties on aircraft subject to an air carrier's operations specifications, directly 

or by contract, is performing a safety-sensitive tunction and must be subject to drug 

testing under an antidrug program implemented in accordance with that appendix." 

Under 14 C.F.K. part 121, Appendix J. § U.A, an employee who performs aircraft 

maintenance or preventive maintenance duties on an aircraft subjeci to ihc air carrier's 

operations specifications, directly or by contract, is performing a safet>'-sensitive ftjnction 

and must be subject to alcohol testing under an Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program 

C'AMPP" ) implemented in accordance with that appendix. •* 

On June 24, 2008, Mr. Baker performed safety-sensitive functions for Respondent 

in thai he performed maintenance or preventive maintenance by performing a vibration 

balance check on Respondent's aircraft, which is li.sted on Respondent's operations 

speeificiilions. and signing paperwork related to the performance of that maintenance. 

('Exh A-4: Exh. A-3: Tr. 87: 3-10: 227-8: 15-1). Therefore. Mr. Baker was required to be 

subject to DOl'-rcquired drug and alcohol lesiing in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 121. 

Appendices I and J. 

1-1 C.F.R. parr 121. .'Appendix I, § III - Emplayet.", H'ho Must be Tested. Each employee, incJLiding any 

a-ssi.-nani. helper, or individual in 3 training status, who performs a safety-sensitive function listed in this 

section directly or hy contract (including by subcoiiiract at any tier) for an employer zs, defined in this 

appendix must be subject to dmg resting under an antidrug program implemented in accordance with thi? 

appcndi.\ This includo fuII-iime, pan-time, temporary, and jnternnittent employcci regardless of the 

degree ot supervision. The safciy-scnsiiive functions are: E Aircraft mairitenance and preventive 

maintenance duties. 

^ MC.F.R. part 121, Appendix J.§ H,A - Covered Employees 

A. Each employee, including any as<istAnt, helper, or individual in a training status, ^ho performs 

a safcty-avnsitfve function listed in this section directly or hy contract (including by subcontract at any tier) 

for an employer as defined in this appendix must be subject to alcohol testing under an alcohol misuse 

prevention program implemented in accordance wiUi ihis appendiv. This includes I'ull-rime, pan-time, 

temporary, and intcrmirteni employees regardless of the degree ofsupervision. The safety-sensitive 

funelions arc: 5. Aircraft maintenance or preventive maintenance duties. 
03/23/201 2 07:2 9 FAX 202(J935142 FAA ^ DMS ^006/01 4 

B. On or About June 24, 2008, Respondent Was an Employer Under 14 C.F.R. 

part 121, Appendices T and J. 

Respondent was an employer as defined in 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendices I and 

J. 14 C.F.R. pait 121, Appendix I, § II derines "employer'as''a part 119 certificate 

holder with authority to operate under parts 121 and/or 135 .. . ." 14 CF.R. part 121, 

Appendix .1, § ID defines "employer" as "a part 119 certificate holder with authority to 

operate under parts- 121 and/or 135 .. . ."Respondent is the holder of Air Carrier 

Certificate No. MK3A020K, issued under 14 C.F.R. part 119 and authorized lo conduct 

operations under 14 C.F.R. part 135 of the FARs, and is therefore an/'employer' as 

defined in borh 14 CF.R. part 12i, Appendices I and J. (Fxh^^Vi; Tr. 107-8: 19-7; 190; 

7-20). 

C. On or About June 24, 2008, Mr. Baker Was an Employee of Respondent 

Under 14 C.F.R, part 121. Appendices T and J. 

Mr, Baker was an employee of Respondent as defined in 14 C.F.R. part 121, 

Appendices 1 and J. 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix I. § II defines "employee" as "a person 

who is hired, either directly or by contract, to perform a safety-sensiilive function for an 

employer... " 14 CF.R. part 121, Appendix J, § l.D defines "'covered employee" as "a 

person who performs, either directly Or by contract, a safety sensitive function listed in 

section II of the appendix for an employer . . .." 

As discussed above, Mr. Baker pcrforitied safety sensitive tiinetions when he 

perfonn<.:d maintenance or preventive maintenance by performing a vibration balance 

chtck on Respondent's pan 135 aircraft and signing paperwork related to the 

performance otthat maintenance. (Hxh. A-4: Exh. A-3_; Tr. 87; 3-10; 227-8: 15-1). Mr. 

Baker pertbrmed this work as an independent contractor and not in his capacity as an 
03/23/2012 07:29 FAX 2024935142 FAA - DMS 12007/014 

employee of either Air Methods or the Air National Guard. (Tr. 228: 2-8). Therefore, Mr. 

Baker was an employee of Respondent as defined by both UC.F.R.part 121, 

Appendices I and .1. (Tr. 1U8-9: 8-14; 190-2: 21-2). 

D. On or About June 24, 2008, Mr. Baker Was Not Covered Under 

Respondent':^ DOT-Required Drug or Alcohol Testing Programs or His Own 

DOT-Required Drug or Alcohol Testing Programs. 

Mr. Baker was not covered under Respondent's DOT-required drug or alcohol 

lesting programs or his own DOT-required drug or alcohol lesliny programs. Mr. Baker 

was not included in Rcspondenl's random pool tor DOT-required drug and alcohol 

testing when he performed a safety-sensitive function for Respondent on July 24, 2008. 

("Exh. A-6; Tr. 228-9: 22-3). Mr. Baker did no! have and was not included in his own 

FAA-mandated antidrug prop-am or AMP P at the time he performed safety-sensitive 

functions for Respondent on July 24, 2008. (Tr: 204; 1 i-13; 228: 18-21). 

Respondent denies these facts based on an erroneous understanding of the 

regulations and the so-called "moonlighting" loophole which previously allowed 

employers to utilize safciy-sensitivc employees who were under another employer's drug 

testing program regardless of whether the other employer had a connractual relationship 

withtheemployerwhohiredihemoonlighter. (Tr. 67: 15-17:68: 11-14; 106: 11-21; 192: 

6-9). However, the ''moonlighting'' loophole has no bearing on this matter because the 

loophole was closed in 2004 and the regulation now explicitly prohibits that practice. 

(Fxh. A-ll.Tr. 107:2-11: 192: 15-16; 197: 11-21; 299; 16-13). Therefore, employees 

who performed safety-sensitive functions for Respondent were required lo either be 

included in Respondent's drug and alcohol testing programs or be included in the drug 

and alcohol lesiing programs of a company with whom Respondcnl coniracied to provide 
03/23/201 2 07.2 9 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS 0008/01 4 

such safciy-sensitlve functions. In this case, Mr. Baker was not under Respondent's drug 

and alcohol testing programs or under the drug and alcohol testing programs of a 

company that was contracted with Respondent to provide safet>'-sensitive functions. 

E. On or About June 24. 2008, Respondent Had an Active Part 119 Certificate 

With Operations Specifications Authoriziog Pari 135 Operations, 

Respondent is. and at ihe lime of the violations was, the holder of Air Carrier 

Certificate No. MR3A020K. issued under 14 C.F.R. pan 119 and authorized lo conduct 

operations under 14 C.F.R. part 135 of the FARs.fExh. A-1: Tr. 164-5: 18-5; 165:21-22; 

168: 9-15; 333-4: 14-20). Respondent claims that it was non-operational at the time of ihc 

violaiions and has not been in operation since. (Tr. 36: 13-22). In support of this 

atfmiiative defense, Respondent olTercd at hearing a letter from the FAA stating that Dr. 

Selig failed his .Airman Competency/Proficiency Check and was Therefore precluded 

from acting as a pilot during 14 CF.R. port 135 operations. (T-xh. R-6'). However, the 

letter offered by Respondent only pertains to Dr. Selig's ability to act as a pilot in 

command during part 135 operations and has no impact on the operational status of 

Respondent's .Mr Carrier Certificate. (Tr. 167: 3-11). 

Respondent's operations specifications were active at ihe time of the violation, at 

the time of the inspection and continued to be active as of November 29, 20M. (Tr, 164-

5: 18-5; 165: 21-22; 168: 9-15; 333-4: 14-20). Respondent provided no evidence to 

support its affirmative defense that Respondent was not operational at ihe time of the 

violations. Because Respondent had active part I 19 operations specifications authorizing 

it to conduct pad 135 operations, Respondent was required to perform all maintenance in 

accordance with part 135 including adhering to the drug and alcohol regulations 

contained in 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendices I and J. (Tr. 328-9: 16-1). Ihis required that 
03/23/2012 07 29 FAX 2024935142 FAA r QMS @]009/0l4 

the maintenance performed by Mr. Baker be conducted by a mechanic that was under 

drug and alcohol testing programs delineated in 14 CF.R, part 120. Appendices 1 and J. 

(Tr. 328: 2-8). Regardless of whether Respondent was conducting part 135 operations at 

the lime of the violation, as the holder of a part 119 certificate. Respondent was required 

lo adhere to its operations specificaiions including those authorizing it to perform part 

135 operaiions. (Tr. 328: 9-20). Respondent had an acfive pan 1! 9 certificate authorizing 

it to conduct pari I 35 operations and requiring it 10 comply with the drug and alcohol 

tesfing regulations. Respondent therefore was required to adhere to the drug and alcohol 

testing regulations contained in 14. CF.R. pan 121, Appendices I and J with regard to its 

employment of Mr. Baker to perform safely-sensitive maintenance work on its aircraft. 

F. Rvspondcni Violated 14 CF.R . §§ 135.251(a) and 135.255(b). 

Respondent violated 14 C.F.R. §§ 135.251(a) and 135.255(b). 14 CT.R. 

§ 135 251(a) Slates that''[e|ach certificate holder or operator shall lest each of its 

employees who performs a function listed in Appendix! to Part 121 of this chapter in 

accordance with that appendix." 14 C.F.R. § 135.255(b) slates ihat "[e]xcept as provided 

in paragraph (c) of this section, no certiticate holder or operator may use any person who 

meets the definition of'covered employee' in appendix J to part 121 of this chapter to 

perform a safety-sensitive function lisied in that appendix unless such person is subjeci to 

testing for alcohol misuse in accordance wiih the provisions of appendix J." Respondent, 

a certificdie holder, violated 14 C.F.R. §§ 135.251(a) and 135.255(b) because an 

employee of Respondent, Mr. Baker, was not subjeci 10 DOT-required random drug or 

alcohol testing in accordance with 14 CF.R. pan 121, Appendices I and J. 
03/23/201 2 07:2 9 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS ©010/01 4 

G. The Regulations Cited in the Complaint Were Properly Promulgated In 

Accordance With the Administrative Procedures Act. 

During the hearing. Respondent made numerous comments stating thai the 

regulations that are the subjeci of these violations were changed without noiificiiiion and 

concealed. (Tr. 33-4: 17-16). This argument is without merit. 14 CFR- part 121, 

Appendices 1 dnd J and 49 C.F.R. part 40 were properly promulgated and amended by 

notice and comment in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. See 59 FR 

42928, Aug. 19, 1994 (amending 14 CF.R. part 121, Appendix I); 69 FR 1840, Jan. 12, 

2004 (amending 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendi.x J); jF.xh. A-ll). In addition, when 14 

CF.R. part 121, Appendices I and J were recodified in 2009. the final rule explicitly 

stated that. "[i]he FAA is not making any substantive changes to the drug and alcohol 

regulations in this rulemaking." Drug and Alcohol Testing Program; Final Rule, 74 Fed. 

Reg.22649, 22649 (May 14, 2009); (Exh. A-12). Since no substantive changes were 

made to the regulations when they were recodified, no notice and comment period was 

required under the Administrative Procedures Act for that rulemaking. 5 U.S.C § 553(b). 

Because Respondent was notified of changes to the regulations through the Federal 

Register publication of the Final Rule when required, his argument that the regulations 

were changed, hidden, and concealed without notification is without merit .Additionally, 

it should be noted that the rule making that closed the "moonlighting'' loophole, which 

was done by noiice and comment, was proposed in 2002 and became elTeciivc in 2004. 

Respondeni's regulatoty violations did not occur unfil 2008; four years after the changes 

were made. (fr. 516-8: 20-8). Thus Respondent had more than an ample opportunity to 

learn of the relevant regulations to which it certified it would comply when it was issued 

its pan 119 cenificaie. Moreover, a^ a certificate holder, Respondent is charged with 

10 
03/23/2012 07:29 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ DMS @l0n/014 

responsibility to know the regulations that pertain to its exercise of ihe privileges 

authorized by the certificate. 

T^. The Sanction is Appropriate. 

Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty o f $4,400 is 

appropriate. (Tr. 209-16: 14-3). The FAA has broad authority to assess civil penalties for 

violations of the FARs. See e.g., N L Industries. Inc. v. Department of Transportation. 901 

F.2d 141, 144(Apr. 13, 1990). The FAA's sanction determination "is not to be 

overiurned unless 'it is unwarranted in law' or 'without juslificalion in fact.'" Id. quoting 

Panhandle Cooperative Ass'n v. EPA, 771 F.2d 1149, 1152 (8'^ Cir. 1985). 

The civil penalty in this matter was assessed in accordance with FAA Order 

2150.3B. specifically. Appendix B - Table of Sanctions. Respondent is classified as a 

Croup IV air carrier or operator.' (Tr 215-6; 22-3). Under 49 U.S.C. 

§ 46301(a)(5)(A). Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed SI 1,000. FAA 

Order 2150.3 B delineaies penalty ranges for ditTerenit>'pes of violations by different 

types of entities. (Tr. 211-2:6-20). In this case, FAA Order 2150.3B sets forth the 

following penalr>' ranges: Maximum - $4,400-$l 1,000; Moderate - $2,200-S4,399; and 

Minimum - S550-S2,199. M. For the FARs violated by Respondent, FAA Order 2150.3B, 

Figure B-5-b(T) provides guidance that ama.\jmum penalty should be levied. (Tr. 213: 1-

16). KAA Order 2150.3D states ''thai ihe middle of each recommended sanction range 

would be tor a single violation without aggravating or mitigating factors.'' The middle of 

the maximum range for a Group IV air carrier or operator is $7,700 per violation. In this 

ease, because Respondent's two violations stem from the same omission, the FAA 

^ A Group IV air carrier is defined in KA A Order 2150.3B ni an air carrier or commercial opcraror 

opcraiini; under pan 135 wiih no more thnn 5 pilots and no rnore than 5 aircrwfl. FAA Order 2150.3 B at B11 
03/23/2012 07:23 FAX 2024935142 FAA - DMS 1^012/014 

determined that based on the totality of the facts and circumstances a reduction of the 

penalty from the amouniofS15,400 forthe two violations to $4,400 was warranted.^ (Tr. 

214-5:21-21). 

The sanction is reasonable and was set in accordance with the FAA's sanction 

guidance. See In the Matter of Air Solutions. LLC FAA Order No. 2009-1 (2009) 

(recognizing the reasonableness of a sanction set in accordance with the FAA's sanction 

guidance). 

Prior 10 the hearing. Respondent raised the issue of its inability to pay the sanction 

yet has not provided information sufficient for Complainant to make a determination. At 

hearing, Respondent failed to submit any evidence supporting its alleged inability to pay. 

Complainant requested that Respondenl provide the most recent three years of federal tax 

returns including schedules. (Tr. 216; 7-11). Respondcnl has only provided incomplete 

federal and state tax returns.^ An assertion of inability to pay is an affirmative defense 

and the burden is on Respondent to prove that defense. In the Matter of American Air 

Network, Inc.. FAA Order No. 2006-5, at fn. 19 (Feb. 10, 2006). Respondent failed to 

provide the federal tax returns requested by Complainant in order for Complainant to 

assess Respondent's assertion of inability to pay. At hearing, Respondent failed to 

provide any evidence of its inability lo pay. As such. Respondent did not make a showing 

thai it is unable lo pay the proposed civil penalty. Accordingly, the .S4,400 civil penalty 

" The Complaint was amended on December fO. 2010 to delete stale allegaiions and an appropriate 

adjustment lo ihe peiialrj' amount was made ai tliat time bringing it down to the curreni $4,400 civil 

penair)'. 

Respondent provided the following documents: (1) 2007 PA Corporate Ta^: Rcpon; (2) 2007 PA Scliedulc 

L; (3) 2007 Federal Schedule C - Protlt of Loss From Business; (41 2008 P.^ Corporate lav Report: (5) 

20()X I'A Schedule L; (6) 2009 PA Corporaie Tav Report; (7) 2009 Schedule C-2 PA Dividend Deduction 

Schedule; (8) 2009 l>A Schedule L; (9) 2009 PA Schedule C-5 Schedule of Taxes; (10) 2009 Federal 

Schedule C • Profit or Loss Trom Bu.=;incss 

12 
03/23/201 2 07-3 0 FAX 2024935142 FAA - QMS (21013/014 

sought in the complaint, which fully accords with FAA sanction guidance, should be 

affirmed. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the forgoing reasons. Complainant asks that the Law Judge find that 

Respondent has violated 14 C.F.R, §§ 135.251(a) and 135.255(b) and issue an Order 

accordingly, assessing a civil penalty against the Respondent in the amount of $4,400. 

J 

Respectfully submitted, 

Peter Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

for Enforcement 

Charles Raley, Attorney 

Enforcement Division. AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone; (202)267-3357 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

hmail: charles.raley@faa.gov 

Dated: March 22. 2012 

13 
03/23/201 2 07:3 0 FAX 2024935142 FAA ^ OMS 0014/01 4 

Certificate ofService 

I hereby ceriify that on this date 1 have placed in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

certified return-receipl requested, a copy of Complainant's PoSi-Hearing Brief In the 

Matter of M & R Helicopter. Docket No. CIPlOSOOOl 10. FAA Case no. 2009SO950434, 

addressed to: 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 WesttjalL Dr., Suite 205 

Belhlehcm. PA 18017 

in addition. I hereby cerlity- that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified return-receipt requested, one copy of the foregoing document to: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.F. 

Washington. DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-566-7536 

In addition, I hereby certity that on this date 1 have sent by personal delivery, the 

original and one copy of the foregoing document to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: I learing Doekel Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Dated: March 22, 2012 

14