o 

:--^:";").jPT\^rrlT 0 -

--:q,;M'.:DO!?i-AT!f^ri 

U.S. Departmenf Office of the ChiefCounsel j o D ^. 900 Independence Ave.. S.W. 

of Transportafran :ji ! HU J I U ' •^'Washington. D.C. 20591 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

August 11,2011 

FACSIMILE and CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Depcirtment of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E 12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile; 202-366-7536 

Re: In the Matter of M & R Helicopters, DOT Docket No. CP1OSOOO11, 

FDMS No. FAA-2010 - 1211; FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

Dear Judge Goodwin: 

Attached, please find the Second Amended Complaint for this matter. Tliis amended 

coinplaint corrects the following three clerical errors: 

1. The citation in paragraph 3 to 14 C.F.R. § 135.255 is corrected to read "(b)" 

rather than '"(a)" to correspond with the violations listed in paragraph 11; 

2. In paragraph 4, the word "or" that appeared between "maintenance" and 

"preventive maintenance" has been replaced with "and" so as to now read 

"...maintenance and preventive maintenance duties..."; and 

3. A "d" was added to the word "reference" in paragraph 9 so that the language now 

reads "...at the time of performance referenced..." 

Sincerely, 

Peter Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

for Enforcement 

By: 

Charies Raley, Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Phone: (202)267-3357 AUG ' 2 2011 

Facsimile: (202) 267-5106 ^-EARING DOCKET 
Co: Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 
Before the U.S. Department of Transportation') ^BMB^^^^ B W ^ Z i_,f 

Federal Aviation Administration 

AUG 12 201) 

h^EARING DOCKET 

In the matter of 

Docket No. TBA 

FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

M & R HELICOPTER 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, 

14 C.F.R. § 13.208, the Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), this 

Second Amended Complaint in the above-captioned matter. 

I. 

Respondent M & R Helicopters, LLC (M & R Helicopters), was advised through 

a Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty on October 21, 2010, that the FAA proposed to 

assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,400 for violations of Federal Aviation 

Regulations. By letter dated October 27,2010, Respondent requested a hearing in the 

above-captioned matter. 

II. 

1. M & R Helicopters, LLC (M & R Helicopters) is now, and at all times 

mentioned in this document was, the holder of Air Carrier Certificate No. MR3A020K, 

issued under 14 C.F.R. part 119 and authorized to conduct operations under 14 C.F.R. 

part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

2. At all times mentioned in this document, M & R Helicopters' operations 

specifications required it to comply with 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendices I and J and 

1 
49 C.F.R. part 40 for its antidrug and alcohol misuse prevention program. 

3. At all times mentioned in this document, 14 C.F.R. §§ 135.251(a) and. 

135.255(b) required that M & R Helicopters test each employee who performs a safetysensitive function listed in 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix I and J in accordance with those 

appendices. 

4. Under 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix I, § III, an employee who performs 

aircraft maintenance and preventive maintenance duties, directly or by contract for M & 

R Helicopters, is performing a safety-sensitive function and must be subject to drug 

testing under an antidiTig progran"i implemented in accordance with that appendix. 

5. Under 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix J, § Il.A, an employee who performs 

aircraft maintenance or preventive maintenance duties,, directly or by contract for M & R 

Helicopters, is performing a safety-sensitive ftinction and must be subject to alcohol 

testing under an alcohol misuse prevention program (AMPP) implemented in accordance 

with that appendix. 

6. At all times mentioned in this document, 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix I, 

§ V.B, required each safety-sensitive employee to be subjected to DOT-required random 

drug testing in accordance with that Appendix. 

7. At all times mentioned in this document, 14C.F.R.part 121, Appendix J, 

§ ni.C, required each safety-sensitive employee to be subjected to DOT-required random 

alcohol misuse testing in accordance with that Appendix. 

8. On or about July 24, 2008, Mr. Edward Baker III performed a safetysensitive function for M & R Helicopters. 
9. Mr. Baker was not included in M & R Helicopter's random pool for DOTrequired drug and alcohol testing at the time of the performance referenced in 

paragraph 8. 

10. Mr. Baker did not have and was not included in an FAA-mandated 

antidrug program and AMPP at the time he performed safety-sensitive functions tbr 

M & R Helicopters, as set forth in paragraph 8. 

11. By reason of the foregoing, M & R Helicopters violated the following 

FAA regulations: 

(a) 14 C.F.R. § 135.251(a), in that it failed to test each employee who 

performed a safety-sensitive function listed in 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix I in 

accordance with Section V.A.I and Section V.B.5 of that appendix. 

(b) 14 C.F.R. § 135.255(b), in that it failed to test each employee who 

performed a safety-sensitive function listed in 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix J in 

accordance with the provisions of Section III.C.5 of that appendix. 

III. 

1. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46301(a)(5)(A), Respondent is subject to a civil 

penalty for each of the violations alleged. The maximum civil penalty per violation is 

$11,000. 

2. Under the facts and cucumstances of this case, a civil penalty of $4,400 is 

appropriate. 
WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfiilly requests that the Administrative Law 

Judge enter an order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amotint of $4,400. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Peter Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

for Enforcement 

By: _ 

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 

Email: charles.raley@faa.gov 

Dated: August 11,2011 
Certificate of Service 

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

certified return-receipt, a copy of the Second Amended Complaint in the case of In the 

Matter ofM& R Helicopters, Docket No. CPl OSOOO 110, FAA Case no. 2009SO950434, 

addressed to: . 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President . 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 . 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

In addition, 1 hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, 

postage prepaid, certified return-receipt and facsimile one copy of the foregoing 

document to: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E 12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsmiile: 202-366-7536 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date 1 have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

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

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Dated: August 11,2011