• 12/14/2010 10: 19AM FAX 

ilOOOI/0006 

-0^. 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFl-H 

2816 0refleld Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

'^MENTO F 

•^ CPEFfATiCNS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

FAA Case: No: 2009SO950434 

Federal Docket. No: 2010-1211 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO DISMISS 4 

FAILURE TO RESPOND OR MEET FILING DEADLINES ON 8 PLEADINGS 

AND NOW, comes respondent, MICHAEL B. SELIG, MD, FACC, CFI-H, 

principle for M & R Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operational since 2009) whom 

avers and files the following MOTION FOR JUDGMENT since the complainants 

have failed to respond or answer filing deadlines in accordance to §13.218(d). 

1. On July 21, 2009, FAA Officers, Latonya Williams and Kimmy Poon 

appeared for an initial inspection at the joint office of Lifeline Cardiology and 

MR Helicopters, LLC. 

2. The alleged violation for Mr Baker according to Ms Williams Inspector 

Statement lOP 9 record, was due to "inability to find FAA approved drug and 

1 of 4 
• 12/14/2010 10;13AM FAX lgl0002/0006 

alcohol testing program information for Flight Methods". Mr Baker was not 

employed by Flight Methods, but by Air Methods Corporation, therefore Ms 

Williams erred in this fundamental fact driving the violation. 

3. Ms Williams failed to perform with due diligence and in good faith an 

investigation confirming that Mr Baker was not on a drug and alcohol program, 

the sole premise for driving the violation. Counsel is bound by judicial estoppels 

for any other claims. 

4. On October 21,2010, MRH was served with a Final Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty, citing a potential fine of $5400 (Fifty Four Hundred Dollars). This 

occurred over 1 year later, past the statue of limitations and therefore time 

barred. 

5. On October 27, 2010 a certified letter was sent to Ms Ponto requesting 

discovery. To date no objection or production has been received past the 30 

day deadline and in violation to § Rule 13.220(d). 

6. On November 24, 2010, a letter was faxed and sent to Ms Pontes 

department reminding them of outstanding issues, not addressed in the 10 day 

deadline period in violation to §13.218(d) or in the 30 day deadline period, in 

violation to § Rule 13.220(d) (Exhibit 1-tax confirmation sheet). 

7. On November 27, 2010, Preliminary Objections was faxed and 

submitted to Ms Pontes department, to which no objection or answer was 

submitted in the 10 day deadline period in violation to §13.218(d) Exhibit 1-fax 

confirmation sheet). 

2 of 4 
210003/0006 

12/14/201 0 10:19AM FAX 

8. On November 27, 2010, a letter to Ms Pontes department was faxed 

and sent, reminding her of the requested hearing transcripts (Exhibit l-fax 

confirmation sheet). 

9. On November 29, 2010, a Motion and Brief to Quash, Strike or Dismiss 

Complaint was faxed and sent to Mr Pontes department, to which no objection 

or answers have been received within the 10 day deadline under § Rule 

13.220(d) (Exhibit 1-fax confirmation sheet). 

10. Now in addition to the above 5 documents that hove not been 

objected to or answered to this date, on November 30, 2010, a motion to Strike 

Allegation was faxed and sent to Ms Pontes department to which no objection 

or answer was received within the 10 day deadline under § Rule 13.220(d) 

(Exhibit 1-fax confirmation sheet). 

11. On December 1, 2010, a Motion for Deposition of Latonya Williams 

was faxed and sent to Mr Pontes department, to which no objection or answers 

have been received within the 10 day deadline under § Rule 13.220(d 

12. On December 2, 2010, a Motion to Compel Discovery was faxed 

and sent to Mr Pontes department, to which no objection or answers have been 

received within the 10 day deadline under § Rule 13.220(d). 

11. There is no reason for counsel to not be able to respond to any 8 of 

the above deadline dates in accordance to the FAA Rules of Civil Penalty 

Proceedings 14 C.F.R. §13.16 and subpart G, as the Office of Chief Counsel 

employs many attorneys, handles thousands of violations yearly and therefore 

3 of 4 
gl0004/0006 

12/14/2010 10:19AM FAX 

alternatives are readily available to cover or substitute for vacation, illness or 

other reasons. 

12. This case does not have exclusive authority of only Ms Ponto, as 

there have already been other intervening attorneys that have reviewed or 

been involved in the case, including Peter Lynch, Esq.. (letter October 21,2010, 

(exhibit 1), Charles Raley, Esq. (October 1, 2010 telephone hearing, transcripts 

outstanding), Ms Cynthia Dominik, Esq. (Telephone call December 8, 2010), 

therefore, there is no excuse or reason for absent or late filing of objections or 

answers under any premise for all the above 8 documents. 

13. Defendant does not agree to any form of continuance as the case 

basis is frivolous at best from the onset, due to insufficiency, erred claims and 

now multiple procedural mishaps, 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will grant the 

Motion for judgment to dismiss the case due to unresponsive and absent filings 

in accordance to Rules § 13.220(d) and § 13.220(d). 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H ^ ^^^^ ^ 

Date ,^^3v^^ 

4 of 4 
12/14/2010 10: 

11/30/2010 6 

19AM FAX 

:14PM FAX 

il0005/0006 

1210002 

start Tlmo 

11/19 12-.58 

11/21 05T4 4 

_ x/24 06:05 

11/27 07:2fl 

11/27 10:04 

11/29 10:0.') 

11/30 OB:!.*) 

PM 

PM 

I'M 

AM 

A« 

PM 

PM 

AddrBSs 

610 770 9894 

S1O4S40620 

12022675106 

12022675108 

1202ZB7510B 

12022675108 

12022675106 

No. 

soos 

007JL 

0072 

007,1 

0074 

0075 

0076 

Mode 

Auto RI 

Send 

Send 

Send 

Send 

Send 

Send 

liCM 

UCM 

ECM 

BCM 

ECM 

KCM 

KCM 

Paso 

4 

4 

2 

2 

19 

43 

7 

Ku 

OK 

OK 

OK 

OK 

OK 

OK 

OK 

BlllC 

00'41 

00*42 

00'27 

00'2G 

02'44 

oe'3o 

OO'SG 

Cl^^lKt I 
12/14/2010 10:13AM FAX HOOOS/OOOG 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

T»d»rol Aviation Administration 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

FAA Case 2009SO950434 

V. 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

1 HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this day served the foregoing entrie(s): 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO DISMISS 4 

FAILURE TO RESPOND OR MEET FIUNG DEADLINES ON 8 PLEADINGS 

upon all parties of record in this proceeding, in accordance with the requirements of Rule 29 

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1746 . 

Service bv first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follovsrs: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Att: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

V/FAX202 493 5142 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

US Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Cynthia Dominik, Esq. 

Enforcement Divlsion/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

j/T/O(202 267 5106 l^ 

By: 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 0refieldRoad ^ 

Ailentov/n, Pa. 18104 i t J( ^ 

610 360 3953 \"Vv \ 

Date; hi 
12/14/2010 10:37AM FAX glOOOI/OOIT 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC. CFI-H 

2816 0refield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON . D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Cynthia Dominik, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Docket: 2010-1211 

V. 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT 

AND NOW, comes respondent, MICHAEL B. SELIG, MD, FACC, principle 

for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) whom avers and files the following Reply in demurrer 

to the Amended Complaint in accordance to §13.208(d) submitted by the Federal 

Aviation Administration associate Laura Ponto, Esq. hereby asserting that the 

allegations made in the complaint are erred, not proper or reasonable represents 

malicious, frivolous and prosecutorial overreaching, and thereby the complaint should 

be stricken and dismissed. 

Count L 

Constitutes conclusions of law to which no answer is required pursuant to 

the federal rules of court. 

1 -
12/14/2010 10:37AM FAX 1^0002/0017 

Count II 

1. Agreed in part. MRH has not been able to carry on part 135 operations 

since August 2007, on account of the single pilot operator has either been unavailable 

to pass or take his flight exam for personal reasons (protracted divorce, liability issues) 

or the inspector was unavailable to perform a flight exam (medical leave). MRH has 

since ceased operating under the name and under the certificate number, ownership of 

helicopter has changed, financials have been closed, the company no longer has any 

assets, thereby rendering the complaint moot. 

2. Denied. The operation specifications were signed off in 2004 (Exhibit 1). 

The exhibit came redacted by Ms Pontes and by way of her investigation file. 

Respondent did not deny signing the document, but since the time of sign off, the 

regulation now finding MRH in violation had been changed without notification. 

By way of further answer 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix I and J and 49 C.F.R. 

part 40 are not disclosed, clearly delineated or spelled out in the compliance statement, 

operational specifications, not readily available in the Federal Aviation Regulations 

/Airman Information Manual (FAR/AIM) and thereby one can assume are less Important 

than other regulations that are clearly disclosed in the signed operational specifications. 

These regulations were thereby hidden and concealed. By way of judicial estoppels, 

respondent was already released of the hidden appendices by act of Ms Williams, 

Ponto releasing the other mechanic of all violations. 

3. Denied. Regulations 135.251 and 135.255 as written In the compliance 

statement and confirmed by the respondent does not inherently state that MRH must 
12/14/2010 10:37AM FAX 210003/0017 

directly test each employee who performs a safety sensitive function (Exhibit 2) but 

empirically states that any contractor be covered by an FAA approved drug and alcohol 

testing program. These individual referred to, did comply with mandatory drug and 

alcohol testing regulations by way of their full time employers. 

In administrative law "In the interpretation of the language of regulations, where 

doubt exists as to the intent of the meaning of the language written and enacted by a 

governing body, the language shall be Interpreted In favor of the operator and against 

any implied extension of the restriction". 

4. Denied. All Individuals performing safety sensitive functions on MRH aircraft 

were at all times subject to random drug and alcohol testing programs and have never 

had a history of a positive testing result over the last 10 known year period. Safety 

sensitive functions are neither specific to either pilot or mechanic tasks, but are inclusive 

thereof. 

5. Denied. All individuals performing safety sensitive functions on MRH aircraft 

at all times have been subject to alcohol testing under the alcohol misuse program and 

have never tested positive. 

6. Denied. At all times was the individual performing safety sensitive functions 

was subject to DOT required random drug testing or have ever tested positive. 

7. Denied. At all times were Individuals peri'orming safety sensitive functions 

were subject to DOT required random alcohol testing. 

8. Agreed. 

9. Denied. Mr Baker at all times was in a random pool for DOT required drug 

and alcohol testing at the time of performing safety sensitive functions, which includes 
12/14/2010 10:37AM FAX 110004/0017 

his mechanic tasks, in paragraph 8 and clearly within the known regulations clearly 

pursuant to the operational specifications, the compliance statement and the standard 

FAR/AIM. 

By way of further answer, a regulation change occurred in February 2004, no 

notification procedure was in place to Inform the operator of this change, contrary to the 

routine protocol followed by all other operation specification chapters which included a 

regular notification procedure, written operational specification revisions, replaced 

pages and subsequent re-signoff and confirmation of the new pages that the operator is 

aware and agrees. It is therefore not reasonable, proper to hold MRH responsible for 

changes he was not formally or otherwise notified of. This lacking procedure only 

encourages violation rather the spirit of compliance and safety. 

In addition, MRH was inspected by Vincent Roots of the FAA's own drug 

abatement program In April of 2004 (Exhibit 3) and found compliant with the regulations, 

even though a regulation change had occurred in February of 2004. Therefore the 

FAA's own drug abatement officer was also not informed of the regulation change just 

as MRH was not. It is therefore not proper or reasonable to hold the operator to a 

standard higher than their own drug inspection officers who themselves did not know or 

informed In good faith MRH of the regulation changes in his one on one meetings. 

Furthermore, MRH maintenance Inspector, Gerry Henninger, MRH operation 

inspector, Frank Alotta, the Allentown FSDO manager, Mr Wadsworth, also were not 

aware of the regulation change. The Allentown FSDO is located across the street from 

the MRH aircraft and It's officer's inspected frequently during their daily activities at the 

Lehigh Valley International Airport (ABE) where the aircraft has been hangared for over 

-4 
12/14/2010 10:38AM FAX 00005/0017 

10 years, never to find MRH in violation of FAA regulations. 

10. Denied, Mr Baker was in a random pool for DOT required drug and alcohol 

testing at all times under ERA Med and Air Methods Corporation including the time of 

perfonning referenced safety sensitive functions on MRH aircraft (Exhibit 4). 

Pert'orming safety sensitive functions is inclusive of pilot and mechanic functions, for 

there is no different process for compliance for either function. Mr Baker performs 

independent maintenance under his Airframe/Power Plant certification and independent 

of his place of employment in compliance to FAA regulations. 

11. Denied. There is all reason to believe and in good faith, that under the 

stated circumstances that MRH operated In due diligence and in accordance to the 

knowledge sets of the Allentown FSDO, its inspectors and the regulations that were 

clearly set forth, written and described in the compliance statement, the operational 

specifications and the FAR/AIM. 

By way of further answer, it is not proper or reasonable to expect an operator to 

randomly find and hunt for regulations, not clearly written, spelled out in the compliance 

statement, operation specifications and not even listed in the standard Federal Aviation 

Regulations /Airman Information Manual, or to be required to review hundreds of pages 

of text at a remote site, to focus, find, comprehend and determine if a random regulation 

change had occurred. It is not clearly stated where the exact source location of these 

unidentified and hidden (fine print) regulations are to be located or at what frequency or 

on what time interval to complete this tedious hit or miss search procedure that is prone 

to misinterpretation and error, therefore, it is impossible to ever be thoroughly compliant 

at any point in time, If a regulation change or update randomly occurs. It is also 

5-
010006/0017 

12/14/201 0 10:38AM FAX ^ 

impossible to do this time consuming, random search on a regular basis and Is more 

prone to mistake and entrapment than a forthright notificafion procedure, that is 

consistent and already in place for procedures pertaining to the other chapters In the 

operafional specifications. The current system only encourages violations, rather than a 

transparent method that would encourage compliance and safety as is in place by the 

operation specifications. 

Once MRH was made aware of the regulations that had changed without the 

Drug abatement officer Vincent Roots, the respondent, the FAA operational and 

maintenance inspectors and the Allentown FSDO being alerted, the two part-time A/P 

mechanics were immediately enjoined to MRH's own, independent long existing drug 

and alcohol program. 

Count III. 

1. Denied. 

2. Denied. 

WHEREFORE, The respondent prays to this Honorable Court that the proposed 

violation, consisting of a judgment against MRH, (which currently does not exist, with no 

financial assets) and the recently lowered fine of $4400 (forty-four hundred dollars) be 

immediately STRICKEN and DISMISSED. 

Respectfully Submitted, r i 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H \y^ST^ ^ 
12/14/201 0 10:38AM FAX 

il0007/001 7 

U.S. Department 

of TransportftUon 

Federal Aviation 

Admltiistratlon 

Operations Specifications 

A449. Antldrun and Alcohol Mt»use Prevention Program IIQ Control: 

HQ Revision; 

C 01/22/04 " ^ 

- 000 '^ 

b. 

The certificate holder who operates under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 

certifies that it will comply with the requifBments of 14 CFR Part 121 Appendices I and J and 

49 CFR J>8r| 40 for its Antidrug and Alcohol Miaupe Prevention Program. 

Antidrug and Alcohol Misuso Prevention Program records are maintained and available for inspection 

by the FAA'."i Drug AbHtomcnt Compliance and Enforcement Inspeotors at the location listed in Table I 

bolow: 

Table 1 

./^ 

AddroDS: 

Address: 

City: 

StHte: 

Zip code: 

Location of Antidrug and Alco hoi M Isuse 

Prevention Program Records: 

2045 WoBtgate Drive 

Bethlehem 

PA 

18017 

Telephone Numbers 

(610) 769-7000 

c. Limitptjons and Provisions. 

(1) Antidmg and Alcohol Misuse Prevontion Program inspections and enforcement activity will be 

conducted exclusively by the Drug Abatomcnt Division. All questions regarding this program 

should be diroctod to the Drug Abatement Division. 

(2) The certificate holder must implement its Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse. Prevention Programs fully 

in accordance with 14 CFR Part 121, Appendices I and J, and 49 CFR Part 40. 

(3) The certificate holder is responsible for ensuring that its contraciora who perform safety-sensitive 

worlc for the certificate holder are subject to Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs. 

(4) The ctttificate holder is responsible for updating this operations specification when any changes 

occur in the following: ' .• •- • ..<.. , 

(a) Location or phone number where the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Records arc 

kept (as listed in Table 1 above). ... . 

(b) If the cortificato holder's number of aafety'Sonsitive employees goes to 50 and above, or falls 

below 50 safety-sensitive employees, '••''•• • ... . ] ... .." 

(5) The certificate holder with 50 or more employees performing a safety-sensitive function on 

January 1 of the calendar year must Submit an annual report to the Drug Abatement Division of the 

FAA. The certificate holder with fewer than 50 employees porfontiing a safoty'sensitivo flinoiion 

on January 1 of any calendar year must submit an annual repont upon request of the AdminisirAtor, 

as specified in the regulations. 

'J'he certificate holder has fewer than 50 safety-sensitive employees. 

Print Date; 8/15/2005 A44!)-l 

M AND R HELICOPTBRS LLC 

Certificate No.: MR3A020K 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Public QvallabllilY to be determined under 5 USC Si 

f^.ld ( 
12/14/2010 10:38AM FAX 1210008/0017 

J * 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Avtalion Operations Specifications 

Administration 

1. Issued by the Federal Aviation Administration. 

2. Theso Operations Specifications are approved by direction of the Administrator. 

ALO'lTA, FRANK Principal Operations Inspector EA05 

3. Date Approval is effective; 2/4/04 Amondoient Number: 0 

4. I hereby accept and receive the Operations Specifications in this paragraph. 

Selig. Michael B. A^cnt for Service. Pntc; 2/4/04 

^ Print Date; 8/15/2005 A449-2 Certificate No.: MR3A020K 

M AND R HBLICOPTBRS LLC 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Public avallablllly to b e determined under 5 USC 852 
T2/I4/2OIO 10:36AM FAX 

:/'•' NOTE: Whenever a compliance statement directs M & R Helicopters, LLC. to 

# mail or deliver documents to the Allentown, PA, FSDO, the following address will 

be used: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Flight Standards District Office 

961 Marcon Boulevard, Suite 1 \ \ 

Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103 

REGULATION COMPLIANCE FAA USE 

SUBPART A - GENERAL 

135.1 The regulations governing air carrier operations that are 

contained in FAR part 135, as amended, apply to M & R 

Helicopters, LLC, and wilt be complied with as shown below. 

(a)(1)M &^B Helicopters, LLC. will conduct on-demand 

operations as a holder of an Air Carrier Certificate 

under Part 119 of this chapter. 

(a)(2) M & R Helicopters, LLC. will Insure that all 

contractors, employees, and persons performing 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, and/or 

alterations of Its aircraft will comply with the 

applicable rules of this part, 

(a)(3)M & R Helicopters, LLC. will not transport mall. 

(a)(4) Not applicable. M & R Helicopters, LLC. will not 

apply for provisional approval of an advanced 

Qualification Program curriculum, curriculum 

segment, or portion of a curriculum segment under 

SFAR No. 58. 

(a)(5) Any nonstop sightseeing flights conducted by 

M & R Helicopters, LLC- for compensation or hire 

within Z5 statute miles of an airport will be conducted 

under the provisions of this Part; however, except for 

operations conducted under SFAR 50-2, these operations, 

when conducted for compensation or hire, will comply 

only with 135.249, 135.251, 135.253, 135.255, and 

135.353. 

?)Ck).v1 X 

^^^ m 
>/• • 

12/14/2010 10:38AM FAX 1210010/0017 

..> • 

135.251 M & R Helicopters, LLC. will be a member of an FAAapprovedConsortium, or will have Its own approved 

.^ program, with membership initiated at the time ATCO 

^ ^ certificate is Issued. Consortium membership will insure 

compliance with Appendices I of FAR Part 121. 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. will Insure that any contractor 

who performs maintenance on its aircraft is covered by 

an FAA-Approved drug-testing program. 

135.253(a) M & R Helicopters, LLC. will comply with the provisions of 

FAR Part 135.253, in regard to employees who perform 

a function listed In Appendix J to Part 121 of this chapter, 

as set forth below. 

135,253(b) M & R Helicopters, LLC. will allow no covered employee, as 

described in Appendix I of FAR Part 121, to report for 

duty or to remain on duty, and no covered employee shall 

report for duty for any covered position, if that person 

has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater. 

135.253(c) M & R Helicopters, LLC. will not permit the use of, and no 

^ covered employee of M & R Helicopters, LLC, will use, 

alcohol while performing any safety-sensitive function, 

135.253(d) M & R Helicopters, LLC will not allow, nor will any covered 

employee perform, any flight crewmember duties within 8 

hours of using alcohol. M & R Helicopters, LLC does not have 

any covered employees other than flight crewmembers. 

135.253(e) No M & R Helicopters, LLC. covered employee will use alcohol 

for 8 hours following an accident involving an aircraft for 

which that employee has performed a safety-sensitive 

function, unless and until he has been given a post-accident 

alcohol test, or unless M & R Helicopters, LLC has determined 

that the employee's performance could not have contributed 

to the accident. 

38 
12/14/2010 10:38AM FAX iaOOII/0017 

/ 

® 

U,S. Department 

of Transportation 

Paderdi Aviation 

Adminlshatlon 

Office of Aviation Medicine 600 Independence Ave,, S.W. 

Wastilngloo, D.C. 20691 

APR 2 2004 

>SJr' 

Certlfied-Returri Receipt 

File Number: 2004EA910073 

Dr. Michael Selig, CEO 

M and R Helicopters LLC 

2045 Westgate Drive, Suite 101 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

Dear Dr. Selig • 

On March 3, 2004. you were Informed that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was 

Investigating alleged violations .of 49 CFR Part 40 and 14 CFR Part 121. Appendices I and J. 

After reviewing the evidence compiled during the inspection of M and R Helicopters LLC on 

February 26, 2004 and the documentation submitted in your response dated 

March 18, 2004. it appears that M and R Helicopters LLC did not comply with all provisions of 

the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs as detailed below: 

1. M and R Hdllcopters LLC's specimen collection procedures do not meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 40. Specifically: 

M and R Helicopters LLC's collector (Denase Miller/CHS 02) failed to complete Step 1 

item E, Test to Be Performed, on the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form. 

Corrective Action: At the Inspection outbriefing, M and R Helicopters LLC agreed to ensure the 

collector would complete Step 1 on the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Fomn. In the 

response dated March 18, 2004, M and R Helicopters LLC submitted a copy of an Error 

Correction Training Checklist from Clinical Laboratories. Inc. documenting training for Densse 

Miller. 

2. M and R Hdllcopters LLC's breath alcohol testing procedures do not meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 40. specifically: 

M and R Helicopters LLC's Breath Alcohol Technician (Denese MlHer/CHS 02) failed to 

complete Step 1 item C, the Designated Employer Representative, on the Department of 

Transportation Alcohol Testing Form. 

Corrective Action: At the Inspection outbriefing, M and R Helicopters LLC agreed to 

immediately ensure that the Breath Alcohol Technician would complete Step 1 of the Alcohol 

Testing Form. In the response dated March 18, 2004, M and R Helicopters LLC submitted a 

copy of an Error Correction Training Checklist from Clinical Laboratories, Inc. documenting 

training for Denese Miller. 

>*r^. 

6hM ^ 
12/14/201 0 10:38AM FAX r^..,., . 

j m •• I .:—— — 120012/0017 

V 

Vs^ 

2 

3. M and R Helicopters LLC failed to maintain records as required by 49 CFR Part 40. 

Specifically; 

M and R Helicopters LLC's laboratory failed transmit the employer specific aggregate 

statistical summary for 2003 to the employer on a semi-annual basis. 

Corrective Action: At the inspection outbriefing, M and R Helicopters LLC agreed to 

immediately ensure the lab will send statistical summaries for 2003. in the response dated 

March 18,2004, M and R Helicopters LLC submitted a copies of aggregate statistical 

summaries for 2003 from LabCorp. 

This is to confirm that you have satisfactorily corrected the above Issues. We have given 

consideration to all available facts and concluded that these issues do not warrant legal 

enforcement action. In lieu of such action, we are Issuing this letter, whiclfi will be made a 

matter of record. We expect that In the future M and R Helicopters LLC's Antidrug and Alcohol 

Misuse Prevention Programs will be in compliance with applicable regulations. 

Sincerely, 

Vincent O. Roots 

Inspector, Compliance and Enforcement 

V ' 
12/14/2010 10:39AM FAX 

210013/0017 

1 Earhart Drive • Suite 11 • Coatesville, PA 19320 • 484-288-2800 

www.Bramedllc.com 

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 

Edward Baker 

5 Sarah's Lane 

East Stroudsburg, PA 18302 

Dear Ed, 

This letter is being written to verify that Edward Baker was included in EraMED's drug 

program during his dates of empioyement: 5-^1-2006 to 11-4-2007. 

if you have any questions or concerns please contact me at your convenience. 

Thanks, 

..,...•/ ' ••• 

} I 

I. I J , ' 

Melissa Rodriguez 

Accounting Manager 

mr0drlgue2@eramednc.com 

^•o r/U«c i[|. 
12/14/201 0 10:33AM FAX 

Page 1 of2 

y. 

^ 1 ^ 

mseli 

From: "Ed Baker" <ebaker@airmethods.com> 

To: <ms6lig@ptd.net> 

Sent: Sunday. November 28, 2010 10:41 PM 

Subject: FW: Edward L. Baker III 

Mike, below is the letter from our Drug program manager to the FAA. 

Ed Bal<er 

Base Lead Pilot 

East Stroudsburg Base 

Air Methods Corporatioi^ 

(570) 476-2129 phone 

(570) 476-2128 fax 

(570) 730-3131 cell 

eboker@airmethod.s,com 

Fromj John Hargleroad 

Sent: Mon 11/15/2010 11:40 AM 

To: Ed Baker 

Subject: FW; Edward L. Baker III 

Ed, 

Here Is a copy of the email that I sent Chet Stevenson with FAA drug abatement. Please feel free to call me if 

you need anything. 

Regards, 

John Hargleroad 

Anti-Drug and Alcohol Program Manager 

PRIA Manager 

Pilot Records Supervisor 

A ir McLhods Curp 

7301 S. Peoria St. 

IHngtewood, CO 80112 

Off: 303-749-1373 

Fax; 303-749-1383 

Cell: 314-753-2482 

ihargleroad@alrmethods.com 

From: John Hargleroad 

Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:45 AM 

To: chet.steven5on@faa.gov 

Subject: Edward L, Bal<er III 

Chet, 

Edward.L. Baker III, SSN 158545206, has been continually in the Air Methods DOT Anti-Drug and Alcohol 

program since ll/S/2007, He Is a pilot who also holds a A&P certificate, however he is under our master 

^'M^^ ii/29/:'.mn 
12/14/2010 10:39AM FAX lil0015/0017 

Page 2 of2 

certificate QMLA253U and does not perform any maintenance under our repair station certificate Q.IV1LR253U, 

and Is not authorized or contracted by Air Methods to do any outside maintenance for M&R Helicopters or any 

/.-, other operator. 

Please reply to let me l<now that you have received this email. 

Regards, 

John Hargleroad 

Anti-Drug and Alcohol Program Manager 

PRIA Manager 

Pilot Records Supervisor 

A ir McHluxLs Cor p 

7301 S, Peoria St, 

Englewood, CO 80112 

Off: 303-749-1373 

Fax; 303-749-1383 

Cell: 314-753-2482 

jhargleroad@airmethods.com 

"k:.. 

1 1 /on /o n w l 
12/14/2010 10:33AM FAX 1^0016/0017 

, y 

'/ 

/ / 

m> 

Employee Name: fei "^feife / 

Date: 4^1 - 9QC ^ 

49 CFR 40,25 requires DOT regulated companies to check the drug and alcohol testing record of new 

employees who wer e previously employed by a DOT regulated employer, 

••<<_-

1. W^Mi^ you been employed by any DOT reguleted company within the last 24 months? (check one) 

\ / ' YES ^ NO 

If YES, please provide the name, address and phone number of the facility, (if more than one, list names, 

addresses, phone on the back of this form.) 

^ l ^ M^%a d Co<^jfi 

C ^ lrs^<^ J o f O 11.1 PL..e ^0 % -79^ - - TJOO •^^c<^/Ahc:>U f/ix' 

2 Have you ever tested positive or refused to test on any pre-employment drug or alcohol test 

administered by an employer to which you applied for. but did not obtain, safety-sensitive work covered 

by DOT drug and alcohol testing rules during the past two years? (check one) 

Zl "^ES ET NO 

Sioned: ^^^ ^ Jf ^ [ 

£Ak\ 5" 
12/14/201 0 10:33AM FAX 

U.S. DEPARTMENT O f TRANSPORTATION 

FederoT Aviaflbn Adririlnlstratlon 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

FAA Case 2009SO950434 

V. 

AA & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this day served the foregoing entrie(s): 

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT 

upon all parties of record in this proceeding, in accordance v/ith the requirements of Rule 29 

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1746. 

^en/ice bv first-class mail, postage orepald. addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

^tt : Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

1 / F/O<202 493 5142 

The Honorable Ronnie A, Yoder 

US Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 

1200 Nev/ Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Cynthia Dominik, Esq, 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

/Washington, DC 20591 C ; 

i^-FAX 202 267 5106 

2816 Orefieid Rood ' '/ t 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

Allentown, Pa, 18104 \'V K ^ 

610 360 3953 

Date: