06/03/201 1 12:11P M FA X igoooi/oo u

"'•::T^r:^; Tr^ r

• tJ ; " i i i \ l ii,-
- i .•r.:nr\ikj.'i j Michae l Selig , MD , FACC , CFI-H . Responden t 281 6 0refieldRoa d Allentown , PA . 1810 4

U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C .
Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Complainan t M & R Helicopters , LLC . Responden t Honorabl e Judg e Ronni e Yode r Docket : 2010-121 1

RESPONDENT' S REPL

YTO COMPLAINANT S BRIE F AN D NOW , come s Respondent , MICHAE L B . SELIG , MD , FACC , principl e fo rM R Helicopters , LLC , (shutdow n sinc e Jun e 2007 , a singl e pilot , owner , operated ) wh o file s respons e t o th e Complainant s brie fan d i n furthe rsuppor t o fth e reques t fo rCitatio n Dismissal .

1 . MR H HAS NOTBEE N I N OPERATIO N SINC E 200 7

RENDERIN G TH E CITATIO N MOO T

- 106/03/201 1 12:11P M FA X 1210002/001 4 Complainant s erre d b ymakin g a poin t t o stat e tha t MR H ha d a n ACTIV E (emphasi s added ] certificate . Ho wcoul d th e operatio n b e activ e i fi t wa s unabl e t o carr you t operation s becaus e ther e wa s n o qualifie d pilot ? Responden t decide d i n goo d judgmen t fo rth e bes t interest s an d safet yo fth e publi cunde r par t 119.6 9 t o withdra wai l par t 13 5 operation s du e t o huma n factor s beyon d hi s control . Complainant s trie d t o assert i n referenc e I n th e Matte ro fDavi d E . Everso n d/b/ a Nortt i Valle yHelicopters , inc. . FAAOrde rNo . 2004- 5 tha t no t performin g operation s prio rt o commencin g a drug/alcoho l program s i s differen t tha t no t doin g operation s durin g a perio d o fshutdow n whe n th e agenc ysough t a violatio n an d persiste d a t al l cost s t o th e taxpaye ri n tha t violation , i n th e Everso n cas e a progra m wa s mandate d t o b e starte d 6 0 day s afte rapprova l o fth e progra m prio rt o commencin g operation s whic h apparentl ywa s no t done . O n inspectio n o fhi s operation s specification s n o dru g progra m wa s i n place . Th e cas e wa s stil l dismissed . Th e commonalit ybetwee n th e Everso n cas e an d MRH s cas e i s tha t n o operation s wer e bein g don e durin g th e relevan t period . Therefore , n o presume d ris k wa s presente d t o th e public . Th e primar ypremis e tha t initiate d th e violatio n wa s tha t M rBake rwa s no t o n an yprogram . MR H di d hav e a dru g progra m an d Implemente d tha t progra m fo rthos e no t o n a n approve d progra m an d i n accordanc e t o th e operatio n specificatio n an d maintenanc e inspector' s knowledge , advic e an d i n goo d faith .

- 206/03/201 1 12:11P M FA X 10003/001 4 

### Regulatio n 135.24 1 make s referenc e t o Fligh t Crewmember s requirement s pertainin g t o operation s (emphasi s added ) unde rthi s part . Agai n MR H wa s no t doin g operation s as agree d t o b yth e agency . Regulatio n 135.255 (befor e i t wa s remove d alon g wit h 135.251 ) refer s t o th e certificat e holde r"and " operator . Th e us e o fth e conjunctiv e "and " indicate s tha t th e regulatio n onl yapplie s i fa compan yis no t jus t a certificat e holde rbu t als o a n operator , whic h i s on e performin g operation s o rperformin g par t 13 5 flights . I n accordanc e wit h th e Everso n cas e - on e ma yno t b e cite d o rliabl e fo r allege d operation s violation s occurrin g durin g a perio d i n tim e whe n n o operation s actuall yoccurred . Sinc e MR H wa s no t i n operation , di d no t hav e a pilo t an d di d no t fl yan ypar t 13 5 flight s durin g th e relevan t perio d o fth e violation , th e citatio n must b e dismissed . Furthermore , du e t o confirme d inconsistency , contradictions , confusio n an d complexit yo fthes e drug/alcoho l regulation s part s 135.25 1 an d 135.255 , wit h it s referenc e t o th e appendices , the yhav e bee n "Remove d an d Reserve d effectiv e Jul y13 , 2009 " b yth e FA ARul e makers , 'FA AI s workin g o n a majo rrevisio n o fits dru g an d olcotio i testin g regulations . Give n tli e complexit yo fttia t revisio n an d tti e tim e i t wil l tak e t o complet e th e rulemakin g process , th e FA Aha s conclude d tha t I n th e interi m i t make s sens e t o pul l th e existin g regulation s togethe ri n on e place' .i 06/03/201 1 12:11P M FA X 10004/001 4



### A s i s commo n la wan d i n accordanc e wit h standar d practice s i n Administrativ e La w

"I n th e Interpretatio n o ftt\ e languag e o fregulations , wher e doub t exist s a s t o th e inten t o fth e meanin g o fth e languag e writte n an d enacte d b ya governin g body , th e languag e shal l b e Interprete d i n favo ro fth e Partyan d agains t an yImplie d extensio n o fa restriction" . O fadditiona l not e i

s tha t th e Complainant s hav e take n th e egregiou s an d wanto n cours e o factio n t o pursu e a violatio n fo ra reaulatio n tha t wa s remove d an d rescinde d i n it

s entiret yon e yea rbefor e th e Complainant s submitte d thei r complain t /emphasi s added ) wit h lac k o fcando rt o th e tribuna l i n tha t regard . Thes e regulation s remai n a movin g target , no t properl ydisclosed , scattere d a t differen t locations , no t clearl yinterpretable , ca n no t b e understoo d b y. i reasonabl e person s an d i n thi s cas e wer e no t eve n know n b yMRHs FA A inspectors , th e loca l FSD O o rb yFA

Aofficia l Vincen t Roots durin g th e prio r drug/alcoho l audi t o fMRH , an d mor e recentl yidentifie d problemati cb yth e FA A Rul e makers (emphasi s added) , wh o ar e rewritin g th e regulation , thereb yholdin g MR H t o o doubl e standar d an d a highe rstandar d tha n It s ow n FA

Aofficials .06/03/201 1 12:11P M FA X 10005/001 4

2 . MR . BAKE R I S NOTAN D HAS NEVE R BEE N A N EMPLOYE E O F

RESPONDENT

- MOONLIGHTER . Connplainant s cite d i n thei rbrie ftha t par t 121 , appendi xI allowe d employer s t o us e individual s t o perfor m safet ysensitiv e function s whil e bein g include d i n th e dru g progra m o fanothe rennployer , change d "Jul y 13 , 200 9 whe n appendice s I an d J wer e re-codified'*(emphasi s added) . Th e relativ e violatio n perio d therefor e allowe d us e o findividual s o n a primar yennployer s progra m (stric t proo ft o th e contrar yrequire d a t trial) . Th e primar ypremis e fo rth e violation s o fthi s cas e rest s o n th e assumptio n tha t Mr . Bake rA& P wa s no t o n a drug/alcoho l testin g progra m whe n performin g safet ysensitiv e function s o n th e MR H aircraft . Mr . Bake rwa s an d alway s ha s bee n a moonlighter , fre e lance rfo rth e wor k h e di d o n MRH s aircraf t tha t occurre d 1 da you t o feac h 2 yea rperiod . Mr . Bake rwa s no t a n employe e o f MRH . H e di d no t wor k regularl yfo rMRH , h e di d no t receiv e regula rpaychecks , h e wa s no t provide d healt h insurance , h e wa s no t unde rth e contro l o fMR H o rho w th e wor k wa s t o b e done , rathe rworke d independentl yo n hi s ow n accord , no t unde rth e direc t contro l o fMR H a s is th e commo n la wtest . H e wa s no t subjec t t o disciplinar yaction . H e wa s no t unde ran ykin d o fcontract . Mr . Bake rwa s employe d full-tim e b yhi s primar yemployer , nationa l compan yAi rMethod s wh o provide d hi m a weekl ypaychec k an d worke d 4 0

' Complainant s Brie f

pag e 2^ 206/03/201 1 12:11P M FA X 110006/001 4

hour s a wee k

an d receive d healt h car e benefits . H e wa s alway s o n a rando m drug/alcoho l testin g progra m withou t interruptio n b ytha t primar yemploye ran d neve rteste d positive . Al l pertinen t allege d violations , particulori ypar t 12 1 appendice s I an d J pertai n onl yt o "employees " o fa company , whic h Mr . Bake rwa s no t an d doe s no t includ e o rmentio n provision s o rexclusion s fo rnon-contract , fre e lanc e o r moonlighters . As such , th e citatio n issue d mus t b e rendere d invali d an d dismissed .

3 . REDACTIO N AN D SPOLIATIO N O F TH E ENFORCEMEN T

INVESTIGATIV E REPORT . O n inspectio n o fth e EI R documents , ther e wa s furthe revidenc e o f withhel d informatio n tha t wa s regueste d an d no t disclose d earlier . Complainant s di d no t describ e i n detai l th e method s use d o rspecifi cregulation s pertainin g t o specifi creferenc e section s tha t wer e corrupted . Complainant s describ e technique s i n a n evavsive , elusive , vagu e manne ran d i n generalities . Th e Complainant s faile d t o follo wstatut e a s describe d i n § 552 . Publi c information ; agenc yrules , opinions , orders , records , an d proceeding s sectio n (a ) whic h states :

(2 ) Eac h agency , i n accordanc e wit h publishe d rules , shal l mak e availabl e fo rpubli cInspectio n an d copying — (A ) fina l opinions , includin g concurrin g an d dissentin g opinions , a s wel l a s orders , mad e i n th e adjudicatio n o f cases ;06/03/201 1 12:11P M FA X IgOOOT/OOl ' (B ) thos e statement s o fpolic yan d interpretation s whic h hav e bee n adopte d b yth e agenc yan d ar e no t publishe d i n th e Federa l Register ; (C ) administrativ e staf fmanual s an d Instruction s t o staf f tha t affec t a membe ro fth e public ; (D ) copie s o fal l records , regardles s o ffor m o rformat , whic h hav e bee n release d t o an yperso n unde r paragrap h (3 ) an d which , becaus e o fth e natur e o fthei r subjec t matter , th e agenc ydetermine s hav e becom e o rar e likel yt o becom e th e subjec t o fsubsequen t request s fo rsubstantiall yth e sam e records ; an d (E ) a genera l inde xo fth e record s referre d t o unde r subparagrap h (D) ; Th e complainant s remai n non-complian t t o th e orde ro fMarc h 25 , 201 1 an d therefor e shoul d b e hel d i n contempt .

4 . FINANCIA L PENALT YNO TWARRANTE D O n Apri l 30 , 2011 , M s Pont o confirme d receip t o fMRH s schedul e C' s 2007-09 , Schedule s L,M, N a s requeste d an d a s ordere d b yJudg e Yoder . Mr Rale yconfirme d th e financia l losse s an d o n Ma y10 , 2011 , propose d th e on e an d onl ysettlemen t offe rb yth e agenc ytha t dismisse d al l financia l penaltie s base d o n th e validate d financia l losses . Habituall ythroug h thi s litigation . Complainant s chang e thei rpositions , hav e bee n legall yinconsisten t an d willin g t o alte rwhateve rneede d fo rth e tumblin g need s o fth e moment . M rRale yno wchange s hi s position ^ claimin g tha t th e financial s fo rMR H ar e limite d whic h migh t demonstrat e a n inabilit yt o pa yth e propose d penalt ybu t goe s o n t o describ e th e Grou p I V sanction s

^ Complainant s Pre-Hcarin g Brie f pag e 17 , ^ 2 .06/03/201 1 12:12P M FA X 1210008/001 4

amounts , tha t assume s th e sanctione d compan ydoe s no t hav e losses . Durin g th e pre-hearin g conference , M s Pont o claime d sh e wa s no t awar e MR H wa s a Limite d Liabilit yCorporatio n despit e th e LL C wa s o n almos t al l document s (approximatel y6 0 + submitte d documents ) an d ha d t o b e reminde d b yJudg e Yode rtha t M& R i s a Limite d Liabilit yCorporatio n wherei n th e owner s o f thi s LL C ha s th e liabilit yprotectio n o fa corporation . Aprincipl e canno t b e hel d personall yliabl e fo ra debt . Therefore , oi l informatio n cleari ydocumentin g compan ylosse s ha s bee n provided . Thi s informatio n serve s t o furthe rconfir m th e lac k o foperation , no t havin g performe d an yflight s an d havin g n o incom e durin g an d afte rth e allege d violatio n period .
6 . FAILUR E T O SETTL E TH E CAS E O n Marc h 25 , 201 1 a telephon e Pre-Hearin g conferenc e occurre d befor e th e Honorabl e Judg e Yode rwhe n mos t o fth e matter s wer e discussed . M s Pont o o n unlicense d attorne yan d M s Dominik , he rsuperviso rwa s present , representin g th e FAAdespit e neve renterin g thei rentr yo fappearanc e i n thi s case . I t becam e apparen t tha t M s Pont o di d no t rea d th e docke t informatio n includin g th e ongoin g financia l losse s o fMR H tha t wer e als o sen t directl yt o he r b yfirs t clas s mail , b yfo xan d t o th e docket , admitte d t o suc h an d di d no t conside rtha t MR H wa s no t operationa l durin g th e violatio n perio d a s wel l a s man yothe rfactors . Th e Honorabl e Judg e Yode raffirme d tha t thi s cas e wa s "on e o fth e leas t reasonabl e case s h e ha d see n i n hi s 3 5 year s o fbein g a judge " - 8 -06/03/201 1 12:12P M FA X 110003/001 4



### an d firml yadvise d settlement . M s Pont o the n recuse d hersel ffro m th e cos e an d Charie s Raleyentere d his appearance . O n Ma y10 , 2011 , M rRaleycam e fort h as on e i n a ta g tea m o f4 agenc yattorneys , wit h th e on e an d onl ysettlemen t offe rb yth e agenc ytha t dismisse d al l financia l penaltie s base d o n th e confirme d financia l losses , i fth e responden t woul d agre e t o th e flawe d violatio n theorywit h it s procedura l moras s b e entere d int o th e record . Therefore , al l informatio n cleari ydocumentin g compan ylosse

s has bee n provided . Thi s informatio n furthe rserve s t o confir m th e lac k o foperatio n an d incom e durin g an d afte rth e allege d violatio n period . M s Rale ywoul d no t agre e t o completel ydismiss th e cas e i n its entiret yi n goo d fait h bu t willin g t o procee d t o hearin g despit e th e ongoin g cost s t o th e agenc y an d taxpayer s an d squanderin g o fjudicia l resource s a t tim e o funprecedente d governmenta l deficits . Complainant' s needles s persistenc e an d conduc t i n thi s matte rha s bee n unreasonabl e an d outrageou s an d exceed s th e bound s tolerate d b ydecen t societ yan d ha s bee n don e willfully , maliciousl yan d deliberatel ywit h th e intent t o caus e responden t financia l damages , sever e harassment , menta l an d emotiona l pain , distress , an d anguis h an d los s o fenjoymen t o flife . Complainant s action s wer e don e wit h reckles s indifferenc e t o th e likelihoo d tha t suc h behavio rwoul d caus e suc h sever e emotiona l distress , affec t hi s practic e an d car e o fhi s cardia c patients , furthe rputtin g thos e patient s a t ris k an d wit h utte rdisregar d fo rth e

- 906/03/201 1 12:12P M FA X 110010/001 4

consequence s o fsuc h actions . Thei ractio n als o delaye d an d tortiousl yinterfere d wit h hi s evolvin g int o tha t business . Thi s cos e represent s malicious , frivolou s an d indiscretor yprosecution , procedura l ove rreaching . Th e regulatio n format , changes , lega l inconsistenc y an d fina l dedactio n 1 yea rbefor e th e complain t wa s filed , onl yencourage s violatio n entrapment , confusio n an d non-compliance . I t i s antithesi s t o th e polic y o fth e FA

Afo rful l disclosure , teaching , informatio n distribution , mutua l an d clea r understandin g an d complianc e I n followin g evidenc e base d concept s i n th e spiri t o fth e publi cwel l bein g an d safety .

7 . TH E CITATIO N MUS TB E DISMISSE D BYVIRTU E O F TH E

STAL E COMPLAIN TRUL E O n Jul y28 , 2010 , Responden t wa s serve d wit h a Notic e o fPropose d Civi l Penalty , citin g a potentia l fin e o f$540 0 (FiftyFou rHundre d Dollars ) fro m Laur a Pont o fo ra violatio n tha t firs t occurre d o n Novembe r2 , 2007 ; 8 month s passe d th e 2 year-Stal e Complain t Rul e -Statu e o fLimitations . Afte rResponden t brough t u p th e topi co fth e statut e o flimitations , Complainan t quickl ychange d th e initia l complain t violatio n usin g a startin g dat e t o th e late rJul y24 , 2008 , s o tha t th e violatio n appeare d t o hav e bee n entere d jus t on e da ybefor e (emphasi s added ) th e 2 yea rdeadline . Thi s doe s no t chang e th e fac t tha t th e initia l dote s cite d an d therefor e th e startin g dat e fo rth e complain t o n th e violatio n wa s Novembe r2 , 2007 , bu t th e 2 eoriie rdate s ho d t o b e dedacted , retrospectivel yi n orde rfo rth e complain t t o com e withi n th e statut e o flimitation s -10 -06/03/201 1 12:12P M FA X 110011/001 4

b yon e day . O n Octobe r25 , 2010 , th e Fina l Notic e o fPropose d Civi l Penalt ycite d th e Novembe r200 7 dat e ( 2 years , 8 month s later ) a s th e firs t allege d violatio n a s di d th e subsequen t complain t o n Novembe r19 , 2010 . O n Decembe r13 , 2010 , th e complain t wa s the n amende d an d serve d t o respondent , thi s tim e changin g th e violatio n dote s s o tha t the ywoul d appea r t o fal l withi n th e 2 yea rstatut e o flimitations , usin g onl yth e lates t dat e o fJul y24 , 200 8 an d lowerin g th e fin e amoun t t o $4400 . Du e t o th e constan t re-craftin g o fth e complain t t o fi t th e tumblin g need s o fth e moment , responden t file d a Motio n fo rProtectiv e Orde r(Februar y 6 , 2011 ) requestin g t o stabiliz e th e complain t o rrende ri t moot . Thi s motio n i n additio n wa s ignore d an d circumvente d b yComplainant s ye t anothe rviolatio n o f§ Rul e 13.218(d) . CONCLUSIO N Fo ral l o fth e foregoin g reason s Responden t respectfull yrequest s th e citatio n b e immediatel yDISMISSED . Respectfull ySubmitted , Michae l B . Selig , MD , FACC , CFI Dot e c : Congressma n Charie s Den t Senato rPo t Toome y 

# 5 ^ '

1 1 -06/03/201 1 12:12P M FA X 110012/001 4

U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Charle s Raley , Cynthi a Dominik , Laur a Ponto , Pete rLynch , Lotony a William s Complainant s M & R Helicopters , LLC . Responden t Honorabl e Judg e Ronni e Yode r Docket : 2010-121 1
CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I HEREB YCERTIF Ytha t I hov e thi s da yserve d th e foregoin g entrie(s) : RESPONDENT' S REPL YT O COMPLAINANT S BRIE F upo n al l parlie s o frecor d i n thi s proceeding , i n accordanc e wit h th e requirement s o fRul e 2 9 pursuan t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 174 6 . Sorvic e b vfirst-clas s rnail , postag e prepaid , addresse d a s follows : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 \ndeipendenc e Avenue , S W Wilbu rWrigh t Avenue-Suit e 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Att : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 j^.'^A X 20 2 49 3 514 2 Charle s Rale y Enforcemen t Division/AGC-30 0 Offic e o fth e Chie fCounse l FA A 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 .^,^AX20 2 26 7 5)0 6 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r U S Departmen t o fTransportatio n Offic e o fHearings , M-20 , Roo m E l 2-32 0 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue . S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 I^^TA X 20 2 36 6 753 6 

# Mil By: _ Michae l B . Selig , MD , FACC . 281 6 0refieldRoa d Allentown , Pa . 1810 4 61 0 36 0 395 3 Date : IOIU 406/03/201 1 12:12P M FA X 110013/001 4

Michae l B . Selig , MD , FACC , CFI- H 281 6 Orefiel dRoa d Allentown , PA . 1810 4 Jun e 3 , 201 1 Senato r Pat Toome y 115 0 S.Ceda r

Cres t Blv d Suit e 10 1 Allentown , PA1810 3 Phone : (610 ) 434-144 4 Fax:(610)434-184 4 Cas e Docke t

Number : 2010-121 1 www.regulations.go v Dear M r Toomey : I liv e withi nyou r

district an dI amwritin g t o yo u fo r you r assistanc e an dintervention . T hav e apar t

tim e operate dan dpilote dpa n13 5 Helicopte r Ai r Charte r i nadditio nt o bein g alicense dcardiologis t

at Lehig hValle y Hospita l Network for th e las t 2 3 years . 1 amattachin g aBrie f

an drepl y t o Complainant' s Brie f tha t I filedint o th e docke t

that summarize s th e detail s o f th e issue s that

1 hav e encountere dwithth e Federa l Aviatio n Administration . 1 hav e represente dmysel f pro-s e an dconside r

thi s cas e maliciou s prosecutoria l profilin g tha t i s ove r reachin g at

th e ta x payers ' expense . It i s hardt o imagin e tha t

th e governmen t

woul dspen dmor e tha nafine for anon-meritoriou s an d flawedcas e whe nWashingto ni s facin g anunprecedente ddeficit . A s require db y Publi c Law 93-579 , th e Privac y Act , 1 hereb y reques t an d authoriz e for

yo u t o interced e o nm y behalf , includin g th e righ t

t o revie w al l appropriate d documentatio nthat

yo u o r you r staf f deem s necessary inconnectio nwithth e applicatio n for assistanc e o r

an y otlie r

actio n1 hav e pendin g withth e FAA . 1 understan dthat an y document s I provid e t o yo u or you r staf f ma y h e copie dan dforwarde dt o official s o f th e FAAfor review , I understan dthat al l Federal agencie s ar e allowe daminimu mo f 3 0 day s t o respon dt o congressiona l inquiries . Than k you . Your s Michae l B . Selig , MD , FACC , CFl- H06/03/201 1 12:12P M FA X 1)0014/001 4

Michae l B . Selig , MD , FACC , CFI-I l 281 6 Orefiel dRoa d Allentown , PA , 1810 4 Jun e 3 , 201 1 Offic e o f Congressma nCharli e Den t C/ O Casework 390 0 Hamilto nBoulevar d Suit e 20 7 Allentown , PA , 1810 3 Cas e Docke t

Number : 2010»12t l www.regulations.go v Dear M r Dent ; I liv e withi nyou r

distric t an d1 a mwritin g t o yo u t o for assistance . 1 hav e apart tim e operate dan dpilote dFAApart 13 5 Helicopte r

Ai r Charte r i nadditio nto bein g a license dcardiologist . I nfact , w e me t at Lehig hValley Hospital
- Muhlenber g a t a luncheo nsevera l year s back . I a mattacliin g aBrie f

an drepl y t o th e Complainant s Brie f tha t I filedi nfederal court that summarize s th e detail s o f th e issue s tha t

1 hav e encountere dwit

hth e Federal Aviatio nAdministratio nattorneys . 1 hav e represente dmysel f pro-s e an dconside r

thi s cas e maliciou s prosecutoria l profilin g that i s ove r reachin g at

th e ta x payers ' expense . I t i s hardt o imagin e that

th e governmen t

woul dspen dmor e thanafine fo r anon meritoriou s an dflawe dcas e whe nWashingto ni s facin g a nunprecedente ddeficit . A s require db y Publi c Law 93-579 , th e Privac y Act , I hereb y reques t an d authorivs e Congressma nDen t t o interced e o nm y behalf , includin g th e righ t

t o revie w al l appropriate ddocumentatio nthat h e o r hi s staf f deem s necessary inconnectio nwithth e applicatio nfor

as.sistanc e o r

an y othe r

actio n1 hav e pendin g withth e agenc y name d below . 1 understan dthat an y document s 1 provid e t o Congressma nDen t o r hi s staf f may b e copie dan dforwarde dto official s o f th e agenc y liste dbelo w lo r review . I understan d tha t al l Federa l agencie s ar c allowe daminimu mo f 3 0 day s t o respon dt o congressiona l inquiries . Than k you . Your s Sincerely : Michae l B . Selig , MD , FACC , CFI- H