, 02/17/2011 6;48AM FAX 

l^ooos/yy i < 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 0refield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

r;^FARTMENT OF 

,:. J'SPORTATION 

•:• O^ETOFERATIONo 

?:;! FED ?2 P 2-- 2 0 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

INADEQUATE METHODS OF COMPLIANCE AND NOTIFICATION 

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

principle for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-existent since 2007) wlnom files the 

following Motion for More Definite Statement in regard to unclear methods of 

compliance and failure on behalf of the agency to clearly inform the 

respondent and others by means of a notification process that needed to be in 

place. 

1. Respondent for the reasons set forth in prior pleadings believes the 

alleged civil penalty has been filed in bad faith, with many procedural defects 

and the complainants continue with procedural overreaching and unrelenting 

- 1 -
02/17/201 1 6:48AM FAX 

tiling, disregard and abuse for governmental spending. 

2. It is respondent's averment that the cited violation was initiated for a 

time period when MRH was not even in operation and therefore is frivolous from 

the onset. 

3. It is respondent's averment that the regulation cited for violation was 

not clearly stated or written, word for word in the compliance statement or 

operation specifications page A449-land 2 or even present in the FAR/AIM the 

most common reference manual. 

4. The operation specifications page A449-land 2, ;(Exhibit 1) that 

appeared in the Enforcement Investigation Report provided by Ms Ponto, 

showed that the document was signed off and agreed to with forthright 

disclosure, in January of 2004, before the definition of employers was changed 

and other changes in the regulations had occurred. 

5. Of particular importance is that the regulation changes occurred 

after the signed disclosure; wherein the respondent did not know, nor was 

informed by any method and did not formally agree to the changes and 

thereby should be held harmless under the grey umbrella. 

6. It is respondent's averment that the scanf references to the 

monitoring program on page A449-lond 2 did not disclose forth right methods 

and specification of how to be compliant with the regulations. 

7. It is respondent's averment that the scant references to the 

monitoring program on page A449-land 2 did not include a notification process 
,< 02/17/2011 6;48AM FAX 1210007/0017 

allowing operators to be complaint in a forth right and informed manner, 

therefore In affect concealed, hidden and ambiguous from the compliance 

statement and operations specifications. 

8. It is respondent's averment that without some form of notification, 

instruction, briefing or secret communication there would be no possibility for 

respondent to clearly know in a forth right manner what regulations were 

changed and when. 

9. If no notification process was set in place, it was not disclosed the 

methods of compliance for example as to where to exactly seek to find the 

regulations and how often to check for regulation changes. 

10. In this case respondent's was never informed of this violation 

change, until years later that a regulation change occurred in February 2004 

concerning 14 C.F.R. part 121 appendices I and J, definition of employer. 

11. Because there is no notification process for the Drug/Alcohol 

abatement program in place, similar and following suit to that which exists for its 

operations and maintenance compliance procedures, it is respondent's 

averment that it was impossible to know of this change. 

12. The only way for operators to attempt to be compliant would have 

been, first locating the regulations that were not written on page A449-1and 2 

and second to randomly compare hundreds of pages of regulations side by 

side, old vs new, to examine differences, an impractical and time consuming 

process fraught with error, encouraging violation and entrapment rather than 
02/17/201 1 6:48AM FAX ^ 

compliance in the spirit of assuring safety. 

13. There is no sign off procedure as there is for the operations and 

maintenance compliance protocols, clearly delineating in spelled out written 

format and then confirming knowledge of the changes by signature 

authorization and even return of the old, replaced voided operation 

specifications. 

14. The process and disclosure in the form presented cannot be 

interpreted as other than a method that encourages entropment of a violation. 

15. In this case, respondent was audited by FAA drug/Alcohol 

abatement officer Mr Vincent Roots in April 2004, after the regulation change 

occurred, who also was never informed of his in -house regulation change and 

therefore unable to Inform MRH of the regulation change. 

16. In fact, respondent's local Allentown FAA operations and 

maintenance inspectors were not informed of their own agency regulation 

change and even though frequently inspected all of MRH operations, finding 

MRH always complying with regulations, never informed them of this change. 

17. It was respondent's proposal through NASA and rulemaking that in 

order to encourage compliance in the spirit of assisting operators and safety, 

that all drug/alcohol regulation changes be set forth in a notification process 

identical to those which currently exist for the operation specifications. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will require that the 
02/17/201 1 8:43AM FAX ig).v.. = /... . 

complainant respond directly to these statements and/or enter these 

statements as facts and admissions of truths. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

Date . . 

5-
Ig] y M \v / V V 

02/17/201 1 6:43AM FAX 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Fodciral Aviation 

Administration 

Operations Specifications 

A449. AntUl^-uE and Alcohol MUmc yrcvctmon Pyoemm HQ Control: 

HQ Revisions 

01/22/04 

000 

b, 

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

certifies that it will comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 121 Appendices 1 and J and 

49 CFR Par^ 40 for its Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program. 

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

by the PAA'S Drug Abatement Compliance and Enforcement Inspectors at the location hsted in Table 1 

below: 

Table 1 

Address: 

Address; 

City: 

States 

Zip code: 

LocHttou of AntidrUB and Alcohol Misuse 

Prevention Frocmm Records: 

2045 WestRate Drive 

Bethlehem 

PA 

18017 

Telopliono Number: 

(610)769-7000 

0, Limitations and Proyisiot^s. 

(1) Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program inspections and enforcement activity will be 

conducted exclusively by the Drug Abatement Division. AU questions regarding tliis program 

should be directed to the Drug Abatement Division. 

(2) The certificate holder must implement its Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevontion 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 contractors who perfonn safety-sensitive 

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

(4) The certificate holder is responuible for updating this operations Bpocification when any changes 

occur in tho follovring: ' : ' '•' • • • ,.,, .. 

(a) Location or phone munber where the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevontion Records arc 

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

(b) If the certificate holder's numbcr-tif safotyTsensitiye employees goes to 50 and above, or falls 

below50 safety-sensitive employees. '•'••'"'• ... ,V '" 

(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 Dioig Abatement Division of the 

FAA. The certificate holder with fewer than 50 employees performing a safety-sensitive function 

on January 1 of any calendar year must submit an atinwal report upon request of the Administrator. 

as specified in the regulations. 

The certificate holder has fewer than 50 safety-aensiiivo employees. 

Print Date: 8/15/2005 A449-1 

M AND R HEUCOPTERS LLC 

Certificate No.: MIi3A020K 

FOR OfFi m USE ONLY 

Public Qvalabliy to be determined under 5 DSC SS2 
igjoon/oy 11 

02/17/201 1 6:49AM FAX 

U,5. Department 

of Transportation 

Fodaral Aviation 

Administration 

Operations Specifications 

II 

1. Issued by tho Federal Aviation Administration, 

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

ALOTTA. FRANK Principal Operations Inspector BA05 

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

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

Selig, Michael B. Agent for Service Date: 2/4/04 

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

M AND R HELICOPTERS LLC 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Public availability to b e determined under 5 USC 552