12/29/201 0 12:4 4 FAX 202493514 2 FA A * DM S ilOOI/OI I 

### ^:'^'^ARTMEN T O F ::^: t ASPORTATIO N Befor e th e U.S . Departmen t of Transportatio n i J OPFRATlOM o Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n

) I n ih e matte r

o f )

) Docke t

No . TB A M & RHELICOPTER S ) FA A Cas e No . 2009SO95043 4 ) ) ) COMPLAINANT' S RESPONS E T O M& RHEIJCOPTERS ' MOTIO N T O QUASH , STRTKK . O RDISMIS S COMPLAIN T an dMOnO N T O STRIK E ALLEGATIO N Complainan t

files it s respons e t o Responden t M& RHelicopters ' ("Respondent" ) Motio n t o Quash , Strike , o r Dismis s Complain t

("Motio n t o Dismiss" ) an dRespondent' s Motio n t o Strike Allegatio n - Mr . Bake r Wa s No t o n aDrug/Alcoho l Program(Motio n t o Strike Allegation) . Bot h motion s wer e serve do n Novembe r 30 , 2010 . I n th e interes t

o f judicia l efficiency , thi s documen t respond s t o bot h motions , whic h are base do

n substantiall y simila

r arguments . Backgroun d Complainan t

filedit s complain t

i n th e above-captione dmatte r with th e Hearin g Docke t o n Novembe r

17 , 2010 . O n Novembe r

27 , 2010 , Responden t

filed"Preliminary Objections, " whic h appea r t o b e it s answer

to th e complaint . On Novembe r 30 , 2010 , Responden t

file daMotio n to Quash , Strike , or Dismis s Complain t

an daMotio n t o Strike Allegatio n - Mr . Baker

Wa s No t on aDrug/Alcoho l Program . Argumen t I n it s Motio n to Strike Allegation , Responden t claim s th e allegatio n tha

t "Mr . Bake r wa s no t on aDrug/Alcoho l monitorin g program " shoul db e stricke n an dtha t th e12/29/201 0 12:4 4 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DMS 21002/01 1

"cas e mus t

b e Quashe dandSTRICKEN du e t o insulliciency. " Respondent' s Motio n t o Strike Allegatio n a

t 3 . Similarly , i

n it s Motio n t o Dismiss , Responden t argue s that

"th e allegation s mad e i n th e complain t ar e no t prope r o r reasonabl e an dthereb y th e complain t shoul db e Quashed , Stricke n andDismisse d[sic]. " Respondent' s Motio n to Dismis s at 1 . Th e argument s raise db y Responden t i n it s Motio n t o Dismis s an dMotio n t o Strike Allegatio n fail to provid e abasi s to r th e dismissal o f

th e complaint ' o r

ground s t o strike the allegation s containe di n th e complaint. ^ I n .suppor t o f it s motion , Responden t

argue s that

i t wa s never

mad e aware o f

a chang e t o th e l

* AA' s antidru g an dalcoho l progra mregulation s i n 2004 , no r was i t kep t abreas t o f al l change s t o FA

A regulation s throug h direc t notificatio n fro

mFA A personnel . Motio n to Dismis s a t page s 2-3 . Responden t

suggest s thi s i s abasi s for a dismissal o f

th e legal enforcement

actio n agains t

it . Responden t

ignore s that

i t i s a certificate holde r

under part 11 9 wit h operation s specification s authorizin g it t o operat e unde r part 135 . A s such , i t

i s require dto compl y wit h al l FAA regulator

y requirement s applicabl e t o it , uicludin g thos e requirin g i t t o implemen t

a n antidru g an dalcoho l misus e preventio n program . Specifically , paragrap h A449(a ) o f th e Operatio n Specification s fo r Responden t

entitle d""Antidru

g an dAlcoho l Misus e Preventio n Program " state s that th e certificate holder

wh o operate s unde r

Titl e 1 4 Cod e o f

Federa l Regulation s (CF.R ) Pa n 13 5 certifie s that i t wil l compl y wit

h th e requirement s o f

1 4 C.F.R . Pitr i 12 1 Appendice s I an

dJ an d4 9 CF.R . Par

t 4 0 fo r it s antidru g an dalcoho l misus e preventio n program .

' On Decembe r

10,2010 , th e complain t

wa s amende dto remov e tw o date s o f performanc e an

dreduc e th e propose dcivi l penall y t o S4,400 . ^ Whil e th e argument s rai.?e db y Responden t

appea r l o b e more appropriaici y characterize da s affirmativ e defenses , whic h shoul db e raise di n accordanc e wit

h 1 4 C.F.R. § 13.209(d ) an dmus t b e prove n b y Responden t

a t hearing , th e agenc y i s addrcs.sing the mhere t o th e exter n ihe y ma y b e considere da s argument s fo

r Lh e dismissal o f

th e case .12/29/201 0 12:4 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A ^ DM S @|003/01 1

Se e Operatio n Specification s attache da s Exhibi t 6 to Respondent' s Brie f

in Support

o f Motio n t o Dismiss . Dr . Selig , a s th e owne r an doperato r

o f Respondent , place dhi s signatur e o n thi s documen t affirmin g hi s acceptanc e an dreceip t o f th e operatio n specifications.' * Whil e Responden t

argue s tha t

"1 4 C.F.R . Par

t 121 , Appendi x I an dJ an d4 9 C.F.R . Part

4 0 are not

disclose dan dn o notificatio n procedur e i s i n place " t o infor m regulate dentitie s o f

changes , i n fac t

th e regulation s are publicl y availabl e an dal l change s ar e publishe din th e Federa l Register.' * (Se e Respondent' s Brie f

i n Support

o f Motio n t o Dismis s a t 14 . Th e dru g an dalcoho l testin g regulation s whic h require dtha t al l employee s performin g safety-sensitiv e function s b e subjec t to rando mselectio n fo

r dru g andalcoho l testin g wer e i n existenc e a t th e lim e Responden t

obtaine dit s operatio n specifications. ^ Responden t refer s t o a"polic y change " i n 200 4 whic h i t claim s it wa s no t notifie dof

. Se e Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s a t 2,- 3 Respondent' s Brie f

in Suppor t o f Motio n t o Dismis s a

t 4 , 6 . Responden t

appear s t o b e referrin g t o a clarificatio n o f

th e definitio n o f

employe r tliroug h notic e an dcommen t rulemakin g whic h occurre dfro

m200 2 t o 2004 . O n February 28 , 2002 , tli e FAA publishe dth e Notic e o f Propose dRulemakin g for thi s clarification . 6 7 FR9365 . Th e Fina l Rul e wa s publishe d

^ Akhoug h M& ROmittedth e signatur e pag e o f it s operaiio n specifications , th e agenc y wil l produc e tha t a t trial i f necessary . ' ' Rciipondeni incredibl y appear s t o b e arguin g tha t i i ha s no obligatio n t o compl y wit h safet y regulation s applicabl e t o i

t unles s i t i s give n explici t

notic e o f th e regulation s beyon dtha t provide dthroug h th e Administrativ e Procedure s Ac t (APA) . ^ Th e FA A adopte drule s in th e 1980 s to requir e dru g testin g o f person s performin g safet

y function s i n th e commercial aviatio n industr y and , i n th e 1990s , require dalcoho l testin g a s well . 6 9 F R1839 . On Novembe r

14 , 1988 , the FA A publishe dafina l lul e entitle dAntidru g Programto r Persomie l Engage di

n Specifie dAviatio n Activitie s (5. 3 F R47024) , whic h require dspecifie daviatio n employer s an doperator s l o initiat e antidni g program s fo r personne l pcrfonrin g satety-sensitiv e functions . O n February 15 , 1994 , th e FA A publishe dafina

l rul e whic h require demployer s to als o tes t fo r alcoho l unde r

a n Alcoho l Misus e Preventio n Programfo

r Personne l Engage din Specifie dAviatio n Activitie s (5 9 FR380) .12/29/201 0 12:4 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A + DMS @j004/0 n

o n .lanuar y 12 , 2004 , whic h becam e effectiv e on Februar y 11 , 2004 . 6 9 F R1839 . ITiroug h thi s rulemaking , th e FA

A change d th e meanin g o f

Employe r

t o clarif y tha t [sic ! employer

ma y us e acontrac t employe e t

o perfor masafety-sensitiv e functio n i f th e contrac t

employe e i s include di n the : (1 ) employer s FAA-mandate dantidru g program ; o r (2 ) Contractor' s FAA-mandate dantidru g programwhil e performin g asafety

sensitiv e functio n o

n behal f o f tha t contracto r

(i.e. , withi n th e .scope o f employmen t

with tha t contractor) . 6 7 F R] 841 , se e als o Id . a

t 1842-43 . Th e 200 4 chang e t o th e FAA regulation s wa s properl y promulgate dunde r th e APA an dthos e affecte db y th e change , includin g Respondent , wer e provide dproper lega l notice . Accordingly , Respondent' s argumen t lack s merit . Further , th e definitio n o f

"employer " implemente db y th e 200 4 chang e t o th e FAA regulation s establishe s tha t Mr . Baker

wa s no t covere dunder

a n approve ddru g an d alcoho l programfo

r th e wor k h e performe dfo

r Respondent . And , a s aresult , thi s allegatio n shoul dno t

b e stricke n fromth e complaint . Respondent , a s a n employe r

unde r th e regulations , contracte dwit h Mr . Baker

t o perfor masafety-sensitiv e function . Evidenc e adduce da

t hearin g wil l sho w tha

t Responden t

pai dMr . Baker

directl y fo

r hi s services . Responden t

coul donl y us e Mr . Bake r t o perfor masafety-sensitiv e fiinction if h e wa s include di

n M & R' s antidru g andalcoho l misus e preventio n programo r i f Mr . Baker , a s a

n independen t

contractor , ha

dhi s ow n program , fh c complain t allege s tha t Mr . Bake r

wa s no t include di

n M & R' s programan dthat , eve n i f h e wer e treate da s a n independen t

contractor , h e di dno t

hav e andwa s no t

include di n a

n FAA antidru g and12/29/201 0 12:4 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ DM S 12005/01 1

alcoho l testin g programo f hi s ow n a t th e time h e performe dsafety-sensitiv e function s fo r Respondent. ^ Eve n i f Mr . Bake r

wa s covere dby a

n other employer' s dru g te.sting program , i n particula r Ai r Methods , that

doe s no t satisf y tli e regulatory requirement s place do n Respondent , becaus e th e wor k performe db y Mr . Baker

wa s no t withi n th e scop e olhi s employmen t

wit h thos e employers . Th e statemen t provide db y Air

Method s specificall y state s tha t Mr . Baker

wa s '''no t authorize do r

contracte dby Ai r

Method s t o d o any outsid e maintenanc e fo

r M & RHelicopter s or

an y othe r operator, " Respondent' s Motio n t o Strik e Allegation , Exhibi t

2 , Re.spondent' s Motio n to Dismiss , Exhibi t 4 , Respondent' s Brie f i n Suppor

t o f Motio n to Dismiss , Exhibi t 3 . (emphasi s added) . Therefore , it i s immaterial whethe r

Mr . Baker

wa s include din Ai

r Methods ' dru g an dalcoho l testin g program . Becaus e Mr . Bake r

performe dsafety-sensitiv e function s directl y b y contrac t fo r Respondent , Responden t

wa s require dunder

FAA regulation s t o ensur e tha t Mr . Baker wa s covere dunde r

it s dru g an

dalcoho l testin g progra

mo r t o cnsitre Mr . Baker

wa s covere dunder

hi s ow n program , no t

tha t o f Ai r Method s o r

any other employer . Tha

t Mr . Baker wa s covere dunder

Ai r Method s dru g an dalcoho l testin g programwoul dno t brin g Responden t

i n complianc e wit

h th e regulations , becaus e th e wor k perfomie db

y Mr . Bake r fo r Responden t

wa s no t withu i th e scop e o f

hi s employmen t

with Ai r Methods . Accordingly , th e argumen t that Mr . Bake r wa s covere dunde r

Air Method s programfail s t o for mabasi s upo n whic h th e complain t i n thi s matter

shoul db e dismisse dor

fo r strikin g an y allegation s regardin g Mr . Baker fro mth e complaint . * Whil e Responden t

allege s tha

t th e FA A faile dto conduc t

it s inspectio n appropriatel y an dfaile dt o confir mand/o r verif y fact s i n it s investigation , FA

A inspector s appropriatel y considere dandprovide dal l evidenc e obtaine din th e cours e o f thei r inspection .12/29/201 0 12:4 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A • » DMS gjOOG/OI I

Responden t

argue s tha

t i t ha s bee n denie dinformatio n it ha s requeste dor

i s entitle dto . Whil e thi s i s no t aprope r basi s for th e dismissal o f

acomplaint , it

i s als o inaccurate . Responden t

ha s no t serve ddiscover

y requestin g an

y document s i n thi s case . Agenc y counse l provide dacop y o f th e FAA' s enforcemen t

investigativ e report

(ElR ) i n thi s cas e t o Respondent , followin g adiscussio n betwee n th e partie s durin g th e informa l conferenc e hel dprio r

t o th e reques t

fo r hearing . Th e cop y o f

th e EI Rprovide dt o Re.sponden

t containe dal l rcleasabl e document s upo n whic h th e FAA relie di n preparin g an dinitiatin g thi s enforcemen t action . Any document s obtaine dafte r th e initiatio n o f

the civi l penalt

y actio n o n Jul y 23 , 2010 , woul dno t b e include di

n th e EI Rand , therefore , hav e no t ye t bee n provide dt o Respondent. ^ Th e portion s o f th e EIRthat

wer e no t release dt o Respondent

wer e withhel da

n privileged , becaus e the y contai n th e investigator' s analysis , recommendations , an dopinion s andconstitut e deliberative , pre decisional materials , rendere db y agenc y staf f member s i n th e cours e o f reachin g afinal determinatio n o r

positio n o n aparticula

r matter unde r agenc y consideration . See . e.g. , Jorda n v. Departmen i o f

Justice , 59 1 F.2 d753 , 77 4 (D.C . Cir . 1978 ) (en banc) . Th e agenc y clearl y infomte dResponden t o f th e basi s upo n whic h it

wa s withholdin g or redactin g doctunent s whe n i t provide dth e EIR . -Althoug h Responden t

argue s tha i th e agenc y faile dt

o provid e "th e ful

l regulation s reference dan dadoptio n dates, " al l regulation s an dcase s relie dupon by th e agenc y are publicl y available . A s th e holder o f a n operatin g certificate , Responden t shoul dalread y hav e copie s o f th e regulation s relie d on i n thi s ca.se . Se e e.g. , Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s a t 7 .

Whil e thes e document s ma y b e requeste dthroug h discovery , Respondent a s note dabov e ha s no t

filed a discover y reques t whic h woul dpromp t

the agenc y t o provid e document s obtaine dafte r th e DI Rwa s produced .12/29/201 0 12:4 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ DM S 12007/01 1

Responden t

als o argue s that

it ha s bee n denie dtranscript s o f a"hearing " hel db y th e agency , whic h it

claim s wa s recorde dan dtranscribed . Se e Respondent' s Motio n l o Dismis s at

6 an dRespondent' s Brie f Supportin g th e Motio n t o Dismis s a t 7 . N o hearin g ha s been held , however , an dno suc h transcript s exist . O n Octobe r 1 , 2010 , Responden t participate din a

n informa l conferenc e t o discus s th e matte r wit h th e agenc y attorney , a s provide dfor

under 1 4 C.F.R . 13.16(t)(2)(iii) , Thi s informa l conferenc e occurre dby telephone . Agenc y counse l explaine dt o Dr . Selig , owner o f M & RHelicopters , that

the informa l conferenc e wa s no t

ahearin g bu

t rathe r a n informa l discussio n wit

h th e agenc y attorne y tha

t afforde dhi ma

n opportunit

y to submi t

relevan t informatio n i

n respons e t

o th e propose dcivi l penalty actio n an dt o discus s th e allege dviolation s an dpossibl y resolv e th e matter. " When Dr . Seli g aske dwhethe r th e conversatio n durin g th e informa l conferenc e was bein g recorded , th e agenc y attorne y state d"no. " I n it s Motio n t o Quash , Strike , o r Dismis s Complaint , Responden t refer s t o thi s a s ahearing , fromwhic h it ha s neve r receive datranscript . There i s n o transcrip t fo r Complainan t

t o provide , becaus e non e exists . Responden t

als o argue s that

thi s actio n i s time-barre db y aone-yea r statut e o f limitations , but

provide s n o referenc e or

lega l authorit y fo r thi s claim . Se e e.g .

" Under FAA Order

21.50.3 B [inser

t citation] , "rAlfte r

FA A lega l counse l issue s tli e notic e o f propose d action , informa

l conference s betwee n FA A lega l counse l an

dallege dviolators , includin g thei r representatives , are oHere din civi l penalt y andcertificat

e actio n cases , excep t

emergenc y certificate actions . FA

A investigativ e personne l representin g the progra moffic e ai e aske dl o participat e in the informa l conferenc e whe

n possible . Th e purpos e o f the informa

l conferenc e i s t o hea

r an y informatio n th e allege dviolato r

wjshe s to present , andt o consider whether thi s informatio n shoul daffec t th e propo.ie d action . Th e propose d.sanction i s no t raise dabov e th e amount

originall y proposed . Any violation s charge d tha t ar e disprove db y tli e informatio n presente da t thi s conferenc e ar

e withdrawn . Ifth e propose dsanctio n i s determine dt o b e excessive , i t i s reduced . Moi-mall

y th e propose dpefialt

y i s no t change dunles s informatio n i s presente dthat wa s no t take n into consideratio n when th e notic e wa s issued. " I n th e presen t case , a n informa l conferenc e wa s hel dandM& Rwa s uffordedth e opportunit y t o presen t

evidenc e and informatio n t o th e agenc y attorne y andrepresentativ e fromth e programoffice . Am y Frankei . Th e agenc y determine dtha

t th e informatio n presente db y M & Rdi dnot

warran t any change s i

n th e propose dlega

l enforcement

action .12/29/201 0 12:4 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 12008/01 1

Respondent' s Motio n to Dismis s a t 5 , 7 . Under

4 9 US C § 4630 1 (d)(7)(C) , Complainan t wa s require dt o initiat e thi s cas e n o later than tw o year s afte

r th e violatio n occurred , unles s goo dcaus e exists . Th e Rule s o f Practic e provid e tha t

apart y ma y file amotio n t o di.smis s i f acomplain t

allege s aviolatio n that

occurre dmor e than tw o year s befor e th e agenc y issue danotic e o f

propose dcivi l penalty , 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.208(d) . I n th e presen t case , th e employe e a

t issue , Mr . Baker , performe dasafety-sensitiv e functio n fo r Responden t

on Jul y 24 , 2008 . Complainan t issue dth e Notic e o f

Propose dCivi l Penalt

y o n Jul y 23 , 2010 . Complainan t inifiate dthi s action , therefore , withi n th e two-yea r perio d rcqitired ; therefore , th e complain t shoul dno t

b e dismisse don ground s tha t i t i s stale.'" * Responden t

fiirthe r argue s tha

t it ha s "cease doperatin g unde r th e nam e [M& R Helicopters l an dth e certificate number thereb y renderin g th e complain t moot. " Respondent' s Brie f

i n Suppor

t o f Motio n to Dismis s a

t 16 , se e als o Id . at

17 , Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s a t 3-4 , Respondent' s Motio n t o Strike Allegatio n a t 1 . Responden t

attache dadocumen t

t o it s motio n tha

t indicate s that

Dr . Selig , owner

an d operato r o f M & Rfaile dhi s Airma

n Competency/Proficienc y Check . Respondent' s Brie f i n Suppor t o f Motio n t o Dismiss , Exhibi t 8 . Whil e thi s render s Dr . SeH g unabl e t o ac t

a s apilo t durin g part

13 5 operations . Dr . Sch g coul dsubmi t to an dpas s aproficienc y chec k o r Responden t

coul damen dit s operation s specification s t o obtai n th e service s o f anothe r pilo t an dconduc t

operations . Responden t

continue s t o hol davali doperatin g certificat e an doperation s specification s t o conduc t operation s under

par t 135 . Accordingly , it

mus t compl y with all regulation s applicabl e t o par t 13 5 operations , eve n i f

Dr . Seli g faile dt o pas s proficienc y checks , change dth e nam e o f the company , an dclose dfinancial account s Complainan t

i s simultaneousl y tilin g wit h thi s respons e a

n amende dcomplain t

deletin g tw o date s o f performanc e by Mr . Bake r that occurre dmor

e tha n tw o year s prio r

t o th e issuanc e o f

th e notic e o f

propose d civi l penalty , 812/29/201 0 12:4 5 FAX 202493514 2 FA A ^ DMS 21009/01 1

hel dby th e company . Se e Respondent' s Brie f i n Suppor

t o f Motio n t o Dismis s a

t 16-17 , Respondent' s Motio n t o Dismis s a t 7 . Responden t

als o argue s tha t

th e allege dviolation s wer e addresse din Septembe r 23 , 201 0 wantin g notic e issue dt o it . Motio n to Dismis s at 5 . Tha t warnin g notic e addresse dan dresolve dothe r allege dviolation s b y Respondent , but no t thos e allege di n th e complaint . Th e motion s filedb y Responden t fail t o establis h an y basi s for dismissin g th e complain t o r fo r strikin g th e allegatio n tha t Mr . Bake r

wa s no t covere dunde r

adru g an d alcoho l testin g program . Th e motion s should , therefore b e denied . Th e complain t adhere s t o th e Rule s o f

Practic e i n FAA Civi l Penalty Actions , 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.208(c) , an d th e allegation s it

contains , a s wel l a s th e appropriatenes s o f th e sanctio n sough t

b y th e FAA , wil l b e prove n a

t hearing .12/29/201 0 12:4 G FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 12010/01 1

WHEREFORE , Complainant respectfull y request s tha t th e Administrativ e La w Judg e deny Respondent' s Motio n to Quash , Strike , or Dismis s Complain t

an dMotio n t o Strike Allegatio n - Mr . Bake r Wa s No t on aDrug/Alcoho l Program . Respectfull y submitted , Pete r J . Lync h Assistan t Chie f Counse l 

# ^::^^

- i ^ /tf^Laur aPont o Attorne y Enforcement

Division , AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Phone : (202)267-986 3 Facsimile : (202)267-510 6 Date : December

10 , 201 0

1 012/29/201 0 12:4 6 FAX 202493514 2 FA A " DMS 1011/01 1

Certificat e of

Servic e I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s dai e I hav e place di n th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dreturn-receip t

acop y o f Complainant' s Respons e t o Respondent' s Motio n t o Quash , Strike , o r

Dismis s Complain t

andRespondent' s Motio n t o Strike Allcgafio n - Mr . Bake r Wa s No t o n aDrug/Alcoho l Progra mI n th e Matte r

ofM & RHelicopltr.s , FAA Ca.se no - 2009SO950434 , addresse dto :

Dr . Michae l B . Seli g Presiden t M & RHelicopters , LL C 204 5 Westgflt

e Dr. , Suite 20 5 Bethlehem , P A 1801 7 In addition , I hereb y certif y tha t o n thi s dat e I hav e sen t

b y th e U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie dreturn-receipt , th e original an don e cop y o f th e foregoin g documen t

to : Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Wilbu r Wright Buildin g - Suite 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docket

Clerk , AGC-43 0 •T: > Dated : Decembe r

10 , 201 0

1 1