12/20/201 0 7:57PM FAX 

tglOOOI/0031 

'•TARTMENTOF 

•:/.iSPOBWlON ^ 

• i-.:T OPERATiONS 

.=0 J:C 2 1 P 2: 2M 

Michael Selig. MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefleld Road 

AllentowaPA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviaflon Admfnisfration 

Laura Ponto, Cynthia Dominik, 

Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

^pttiSoooii 

RESPONDENT'S SUPPORTING BRIEF TO ANSWERS TO COMPLAINANTS RESPONSE TO 

MRH'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE ALLEGATION 

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

Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) whom avers and files the following Brief Supporting 

Respondents Answers to Complainants Past Deadline Response to MRH's Motion 

to Dismiss and Motion to Strilce Allegation (Mr Baker was not on a Drug/Alcohol 

program), that does not directly address the respondents enumerated 

paragraphs and in breach of Role §206.2, in addition to being loquacious while 

cobbling color o^ \a\N slalemenis, \Wey ove \mperm\ss\b\v vague and \naccura^e, 

- 1 -
2)0002/0031 

12/20/2010 7:5BPM FAX 

to evade and circumvent respondents arguments. 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Respondent, MICHAEL B. SELIG, MD, FACC, principle for MR Helicopters, 

LLC, (MRH) on July 21, 2009, was audited by FAA Officers, Latonya Williams and 

Kimmy Poon for the initial scheduled inspection at the joint office of Lifeline 

Cardiology and MRH helicopters, LLC. On July 23. 2009, FAA Officer, Latonya 

Williams returned alone for further inspection of the MRH drug consortium 

records. Ms Williams behavior during that non-accompanied visit was offensive 

and unprofessional throughout the inspection, contrary to the FAA AVR 

Customer Service Expectation Policies. She entered the joint medical office, 

referred to the principle as "Mike" vs. Dr. Sellg, and spoke loudly enough for 

unscheduled walk-in patients and secretary to overhear her rude tonality. In 

addition, Ms Williams took an excessive amount of time in doing her inspection, 

over 2 hours, thereby delaying respondents patient care responsibilities. She 

insisted that respondent write an on the spot letter to her asserting to facts that 

were not clear in his mind at that rushed period in time (exhibit 1;). It became 

clearly evident early on that Ms Williams draws on the authority bestowed on 

her, to impede and create hardship and financial damages. 

Ms Williams made the primary assumption that mechanic Edward Baker 

was not covered under any FAA-Mandated drug testing program and refused 
Igl0003/0031 

12/20/2010 7:58PM FAX 

to deviate from that false assumption, despite presenting evidence to the 

contrary. Ms Williams also disclosed that there was a policy change that 

occurred In February 2004, requiring all A & P mechanics to be on a company 

specific drug and alcohol program. Ms Williams did not provide the specific 

details referencing this regulation change or training with regard to specifically 

referencing the regulation changes, compliance procedures or of a notification 

system that needed to be put into place, similar to FAA operations, 

maintenance and avionic protocols. MRH was not notified or aware of this 

policy change and even more unsettling, the FAA maintenance inspector Gerry 

Henninger for MRH, also was not aware and was therefore unable to inform MRH 

of this change during the 5 year plus period that he frequently inspected the 

MRH aircraft, located at Lehigh Valley International Airport (ABE) and across the 

street from the Allentown Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). In fact none of 

the management personnel at the Allentown FSDO were informed of the 

regulation change during that 5 year period as well, including MRHs operations 

inspector Frank Alotta, thereby encouraging the alleged violation. 

Of particular concern, in April of 2004, MRH underwent a Drug and 

Alcohol program inspection by FAA drug abatement officer, Vincent Roots and 

no significant discrepancies were cited (.Exhibit 2). Mr Roots apparently also was 

unaware and therefore unable to Inform MRH that the regulation concerning all 

mechanics being on the specific company's drug program and the definition of 

"employer" had changed. It was apparent that not all the FAA drug 
12/20/2010 7:5aPM FAX 1210004/0031 

o.atement personnel were Informed of their own . W e regulation change 

Mr Roots did not mention or provide instruction or training regarding referencing 

regulations that were not readily apparent or written '.n the compliance 

statement or operation specifications or the Federal Aviation 

Regulations/Airman's Information Manual (FAR/AIM), nor recommended 

compliance procedures, a time interval random to check guidelines or of a 

notification system that was in place, similar to FAA operations, maintenance 

and avionics protocols. 

Respondent explained to Ms Williams that MRH has not been able to 

perform part 135 operations since 2007, on account of the single pilot operator 

has for personal reasons (high conflict divorce, liability issues) either has been 

unavailable to pass or take his flight exam, the inspector was unavailable to 

perform a flight exam (medical leave) or the operation and other workloads 

demanded of respondent (in addition to a solo cardiology private practice and 

hospital responsibilities) were beyond his abilities or disabilities. MRH had since 

ceased operating under the name and under the certificate number thereby 

rendering the complaint moot. All financials have been terminated under the 

MRH name and ownership of the helicopter had been changed. 

It is respondents stance to Ms Williams that when operations were 

carried out, they were done so in good faith and in due diligence, using highly 

qualified mechanics and within the disclosed known regulations as directed by 

MRH-s FAA officials and therefore, there was not harm or damages caused and 
12/20/2010 7:58PM FAX 00005/0031 

MRH did not put the public at risk. 

Respondent contacted FAA officers' Jeff Stooky and Steve Heche, 

following Ms Williams audit, to get a clear understanding of facts that were not 

explained to him by Ms Williams and to discuss options as to how to become 

compliant with the new regulatory change. In an expedient manner and in 

compliance with these recently disclosed regulatory changes, in August 2009, 

MRH placed Edward Baker on its own companies drug program and issued a 

pre-employment affidavit that averred he never hod a positive drug or alcohol 

test and a negative random drug test was performed. Ms Williams was finally 

made aware of these compliance measures, after many unsuccessful attempts 

to contact her, (stated she was in travel for periods of time) but she chose to 

pursue the violation, never the less. 

On August 14, 2009, Ms Williams's letter informed MRH that the above 

violations were under investigation. On July 27, 2010, respondent was served 

with a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, citing a potential fine of $5400 (Fifty Four 

Hundred Dollars) from Laura Ponto for a violation that last occurred on July 24, 

2008, 2 years past the Statue of Limitations (Exhibit 3). On August 6, 2010, 

respondent sent a letter to Ms Ponto detailing the statements of fact, evidence 

and request for an informal hearing. Also sent was corrected information that 

Mr Baker did not work for Flight Methods but on affidavit that Mr Baker had 

worked for Air Methods Corporation. Other documentation was sent confirming 

that Mr Baker worked for ERA Med and Air Methods to the present date. 
12/20/2010 7:58PM FAX ilOOOe/0031 

o n September 23, .010, respondent ^as served with a letter from Ms 

; 7 ^"'" ^ ^" ^ "^ ^ - - — - - - lega, enforcement action 

for these apparent violations, '-tead , we are Issuing this warning notice^- We 

continue to e.,ec i compliance with all the applicable drug and alcohol 

regulations (Exhibit 4). Respondent called Ms Ponto on to discuss this letter from 

Ms Williams. Ms Ponto claimed that this letter only dismissed some of the 

violations, even though It clearly sets forth as a bottom line statement that a 

warning was Issued without any uncertainty. 

On October I, 2010, an Informal telephone hearing was held before 

field manager Mr Frankle. attorneys Charles Riley and Ms Ponto. In that 

discussion It was noted the policy change occurred in January 2004. On 

October 25, 2010, respondent was served with the Final Notice of Proposed Civil 

Penalty for a fine of $5400. On October 25, 2010, respondent was also served 

with some of the requested but incomplete, spoliated and redacted copies of 

the investigation file, that did not include Ms Williams's letter dated, September 

23, 2010, which closed all violations and issuing only a warning notice. It did not 

include updated information on Mr Bakers employment. It did not include 

updated information requested by FAA inspector Chef Stevenson, for the 

confirmation of employment by Air Methods Corp and that he was continually 

enrolled in a drug and alcohol program (still not produced). 

On October 27, 2010, respondent addressed a letter to Ms Ponto 

requesting a court hearing as well as production of outstanding discovery 
12/20/2010 7:58PM FAX 110007/0031 

including the full regulations referenced and adoption dates. On November 19, 

2010, respondent was served with documentation from Ms Ponto, that noted an 

inaccurate request for a hearing to be held in Philadelphia as well as a copy of 

the complaint with 3 counts. On November 24, 2010, respondent affirmed that 

the requested hearing location was to be in Allentown, PA as previously 

discussed with Ms Ponto and to again remind of the prior requested discovery 

that to date was still not provided. Preliminary Objections were faxed to Ms 

Ponto and filed on November 27, 2010 to which enumerated paragraph 

response was never provided. 

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). 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). On December 1, 2010, a Motion for 

Deposition of Latonya Williams was foxed 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) or even to this dote. 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). On December 4, 2010, a Motion for Judgment to Quash -
12/20/2010 7:58PM FAX 210008/0031 

additional substantiating evidence was faxed the filed to which no objection or 

response was filed within the 10 day deadline under § Rule 13.220(d). On 

December 8, 2010, because complainants still did not respond to above filings, 

a Motion for Judgment to dismiss -failure to respond or meet filing deadlines, 

was faxed and filed to Mr Doninik, to which no objection or response was filed 

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

On December 8, Ms Dominik of the FAA Enforcement Division of the 

Chief Counsel called respondent directly admitting that the complainants did 

not file responses within the 10 day deadline period, were in breach of this 

regulation and thereby requested a continuance. The Exhibit shows call log of 

respondent's cell phone showing Ms Dominiks number 202-267-7560 displayed. 

Respondent refused a continuance and requested the case be dismissed on 

these grounds. 

On December 12, 2010, respondent faxed and filed answers objecting 

to the complainants Motion for scheduling impositions, since all filings hove been 

appropriate due to the failure to reply or methods of answers were insufficient 

by complainants that were not to numerated paragraphs and thereby avoiding 

and evading most of the arguments presented by respondent. 

IV. STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED 

1. Did Ms Williams or Ms Ponto adequately pursue under due diligence 

and in good faith the correct information for employment of Mr Baker to 
12/20/2010 7:58PM FAX 10009/0031 

determine if he indeed was under an FAA approved drug and alcohol program? 

Suggested Answer in the Negative. 

2. Did Ms Williams or Ms Ponto adequately pursue under due diligence 

and in good faith that Mr Baker was employed by Air Methods Corporation rather 

than Flight Methods to determine if he indeed was under an FAA approved drug 

and alcohol program? Suggested Answer in the Negative. 

3. Is the burden proof for an allegation on the agency under §13.224? 

Suggested Answer in the Affirmative. 

4. Once determining that Mr Baker indeed was on a Drug and Alcohol 

Program under ERA Med and Air Methods, did they then cobble color of low 

statements that this was not adequate, for he needed to be on MRHs own drug 

program? Suggested Answer in the Affirmative. 

5. In contrary to Judicial Estoppels, did the complainants attempt to apply 

to Mr Baker, after finding that he was on a program, the poorly disclosed 

appendices I and J, after complainants already released the other mechanic of 

that restriction? Suggested Answer in the Affirmative, 

6. Did MRH fail to comply with item A4499(a)? Suggested Answer in the 

Negative 

6. By the failure to inform MRH of a regulation change by FAA inspector Mr 

Roots in April 2004, 2 or more months after a regulation change occurred, 

encouraged a violation? Suggested Answer in the Affirmative. 
12/20/201 0 7:58PM FAX ElOOIO/0031 

7. Did finding MRH compliant with the drug and alcohol abatement 

regulations by inspector Mr Roots in April 2004, encourage the current violation? 

Suggested Answer in the Affirmative. 

8. By the failure to inform MRH of a regulation change by inspector Mr 

Roots in April 2004, 2 or more months after a regulation change occurred, is 

holding the MRH to a higher standard than Its own FAA officers? Suggested 

Answer in the Affirmative. 

9. Does the failure to inform MRH of a regulation change by inspector Mr 

Roots in April 2004, 2 or more mionths after a regulation change occurred, show a 

further defect due to an absent notification system? Suggested Answer in the 

Affirmative. 

10. Does the failure of MRHs two inspectors and the Allentown FSDO to 

be made aware that a regulation change occurred, show a further defect in the 

absent notification system? Suggested Answer in the Affirmative. 

11. Does by virtue of no notification system in place to make operators 

aware when a regulation change occurs, make it Impossible to ever be 100% 

compliant and therefore prone to violation? Suggested Answer in the Affirmative. 

12. Are all the actual drug and alcohol abatement regulations 

property displayed, clearly evident and written out in the compliance statement 

and operation specifications? Suggested Answer in the Negative. 

10-
12/20/2010 7:58PM FAX ilOOII/0031 

13. Are all the actual drug and alcohol abatement regulations parts 40 

and 120 and subsequent appendices listed in the standard Federal Aviation 

Regulations/Airman Information Manual? Suggested Answer in the Negative. 

14. Has MRH operated under due diligence and in good faith with the 

known knowledge base and direction by the FAA inspectors and Allentown 

FSDO? Suggested Answer in the Affirmative. 

15. Has MRH caused hardship, damages or put the public at risk? 

Suggested Answer in the Negative. 

16. Has MRH not been operating since 2007, has not used its certificate 

and has closed Its financial accounts make the violation moot at this point? 

Suggested Answer in the Affirmative. 

17. Did MRH represent a small business and hod been operating at a 

financial loss since 2006? Suggested Answer in the Affirmative. 

18. is this violation past the statue of limitations and thereby time barred? 

Suggested Answer in the Affirmative. 

19. Have the complainants filed replies to every and all of the 

numerated paragraphs listed in his motions, in breach of Rule § 206.2, thereby 

circumventing many elements of arguments in this case? Suggested Answer in 

the Affirmative. 

20. As a result of all of the above issues, should this Civil Penalt/ be 

quashed, dismissed and stricken? Suggested Answer in the Affirmative. 

-11 -
12/20/2010 7:58PM FAX 110012/0031 

21. Should the case be dismissed because of repeated breaches of 

meeting filing deadlines and other procedural defects? Suggested Answer in the 

Affirmative 

VI. STATEMENTS OF ARGUMENT 

Did Ms Williams or Ms Ponto adequately pursue under 

due diligence and in good faitti that Mr Balcer was 

employed by Air Mettiods Corporation rather than Flight 

Methods to determine if he indeed was under an FAA 

approved drug and alcohol program? 

The primary premise for the violations of this case rests on the 

assumption that Edward Baker A&P was not on a drug/alcohol testing program 

when performing safety sensitive functions on the MRH aircraft. The claimed 

violation for Mr Baker according to Inspector Statement lOP 9 record, was due to 

an inability to find FAA approved drug and alcohol testing program information 

for Flight Methods. This underiying premise was and always has been 

fundamentally incorrect. 

Mr Baker has always been employed since 1996 by the regions University 

Medivac Hospital sen/ice, always on a drug and alcohol program. Mr Baker was 

employed by Helicopters Incorporated in 1996. They lost the contract and 

Keystone Helicopters took them over in late 2006. Several company buy outs and 

acquisitions occurred resulting in Keytone to Seacor to Aeromed to Sikorsky to ERA 

Med (from May 1, 2006- November 4, 2007). He has been employed by Air 

Methods Corporation, (not Flight Methods) from November 5, 207 to the present. 

-12 -
12/20/2010 7:58PM FAX 00013/0031 

Mr Baker in addition was concurrently on the National Guard drug/alcohol 

program in his capacity as a National Guard A&P and Helicopter pilot. 

Ms Williams and Ponto were given this evidence, but did not pursue the 

proper lookup to confirm the Information that respondent provided was true as 

the burden of proof is on the agency under §13.224. Ms Williams did investigate 

the other mechanic/IA doing maintenance functions on MRH aircraft and 

confirmed information given was correct as stated and withdrew all violations on 

that behalf. Ms Williams let the ball drop in reference to Mr Baker. Had she 

pursued the same process as she did with the other mechanic/lA, she would have 

arrived at the same conclusion. Apparently her intent was to not deviate from her 

prior assumptions and to violate respondent no matter what, who as a small 

business owner trying to provide services in order to cover costs and provide 

unique accessory medical and community services. 

Once determining that Mr Balcer indeed was on a Drug 

and Alcohol Program under ERA Med and Air Methods, 

did they then cobble color of law statements that this 

was not adequate for he needed to be on MRH's own 

drug program? 

Ms Williams next made reference to 14 C.F.R. Part 121, Appendix I and J 

and 49 C.F.R. part 40. This was the first time these were ever mentioned or 

methods of compliance. These regulations are not disclosed, cleariy delineated 

or spelled out in the compliance statement, operational specifications. While 

the reference numbers are listed, without inside information, one would 

reasonably conclude from reading the text, that as long as a mechanic is on a 

-13-
12/20/2010 7:58PM FAX il0014/0031 

program that there is compliance. Of particular interest is that these regulations 

are also not contained in the Standard FAR/AIM and thereby one can assume 

are less important than other regulations that are cleariy disclosed in the signed 

operation specifications. These regulations are thereby hidden, omitted and 

concealed making compliance difficult to Impossible. 

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

operator to randomly find text not cleariy written, spelled out in the compliance 

statement, operation specifications or FAR/AIM and to review hundreds of 

pages of text on a remote site to focus, find, comprehend, compare and then 

determine if a random change in a single isolated regulation had occurred. It is 

not stated where the exact source location of these unidentified and hidden 

(fine print) regulations are to be located or on what time interval to carry out this 

tedious hit or miss search procedure that is prone to misinterpretation and error, 

therefore, it is impossible to ever be completely compliant at any point in time, if 

a regulation changed or update occurs, without knowing as is cleariy disclosed 

by the history of the FAA's own officers. It is also impossible to do this time 

consuming, random search on a regular basis and Is more prone to mistake and 

entrapment than the forthright notification procedure that is in place for all 

other procedures pertaining to the other chapters in the operation 

specifications, which uses a effective, personalized, one on one approach by a 

known and established FAA Inspectors. 

Ms Williams informed the respondent that the regulation changes 

14-
12/20/2010 7:53PM FAX 120015/0031 

occurred in February of 2004. The operation specifications were signed off in 

January 2004. MRH was not informed of the regulation change by Mr Roots in 

April of 2004, when MRH underwent its first FAA drug/alcohol audit. MRH was not 

informed during 5 years of FAA operations inspections by Frank Alotta, was not 

informed during frequent maintenance inspections by FAA inspector Gerry 

Henninger. The Allentown FSDO is located across the street from the MRH 

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

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

for over 10 years, never to find MRH in violation of FAA regulations. The manager 

of the Allentown FSDO, Mr Wadsworth, also was unaware of the policy change. 

Therefore the FAA's officers and its own drug abatement officer was also not 

informed of the regulation change just as MRH was not. It is therefore 

unreasonable to hold the respondent to a standard hiaher than their own FAA 

officials or drua inspection officers who themselves did not know or inform MRH 

of the reaulation chance. Ms Ponto stated the actual change occurred in 

January of 2004 In her informal conference, 1 month divergent to the 

information stated by Ms Williams. The requested reference still has not been 

provided. 

14 C.F.R. port 121, Appendix I and J and 49 C.F.R. part 40 are not 

disclosed and 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 

-15 
12/20/2010 7:58PM FAX 110016/0031 

Operation specification revisions, Phvsical replaced paaes and subsequent resianoff and confirmation of the new pages that the operator is aware and 

agrees. It is therefore not proper or reasonable to hold MRH responsible for 

changes he was not formally or otherwise notified of. 

In contrary to Judicial Estoppels, did the complainants 

attempt to apply to Mr Bai<er, after finding that he was 

on a program, thie poorly disclosed appendices I and J, 

that complainants already released the other 

mechanic/IA of that restriction? 

Complainants attempted to redirect their offense concerning the new 

definition of "employer" in 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix I and J and 49 C.F.R. 

part 40 appendices I and J, clauses hidden, not evident in the operation 

specifications, compliance statement or the FAR/AIM by asserting that Mr Baker 

was not on MRH's own program, even though on another companies program. 

The complainants already released and withdrew all such violations against the 

other AP/IA, thereby showing prima facie legal inconsistency and contrary to 

Judicial Estoppels. They release the AP/IA for good reason that: 1) the 

regulations were not transparent, cleariy evident, 2) for 5 years no one made 

mention of the regulation change, 3) for 5 years no one ever found MRH noncompliant in any way, 4) by finding MRH compliant encouraged the violation, 5) 

the FAA abatement programs own officer Vincent Roots did not either know or 

inform MRH of a regulation change, 6) MRH inspectors and the Allentown FSDO 

were not informed of the change, 7) the complainants are trying to hold MRH to 

16-
12/20/201 0 7:59PM FAX @10017/0031 

a higher standard than their own officiers. Since thev alreadv released the 

AP/IA thev then have to release Mr Baker, as stated In Ms Williams letter dated 

September 23, 2010. 

It was only after the complainants confirmed and realized and 

confirmed that Mr Baker was indeed on a program did they then have to 

reestablish a basis to continue with the violation. The complainants then tried to 

cobble together color of law statements that somehow the program for a pilot is 

different for a mechanic and that being negatively tested does not apply to all 

safety sensitive functions. The complainant further sought a reason to continue 

the violation by stating that Mr Baker was not authorized to perform 

maintenance under Air Methods Service Station certificate either wittingly or 

unwittingly knowing that he was able to perform those functions under his own 

AP certificate. 

Regulations 135.251 and 135.255 as written in the compliance statement 

and confirmed by the respondent does not state inherently that MRH must 

directly test each employee who performs a safety sensitive function but states 

empirically that "any contractor must be covered by an FAA approved drug 

and alcohol testing program". These individuals referred to, did comply with 

drug and alcohol testing regulations by their full time employers. 

Did MRH fail to comply with item A4499(a)? 

Ms Pontes claims a basis for the violation could therefore be redirected 

17 
12/20/201 0 7:58PM FAX @10018/0031 

to lacking compliance with item A4499(a) which states that: 

The certificate hiolderwtio operates under title 14 code 

of Federal Regulations Part 135 certifies fhiat it will 

comply with requirements of part 121 appendences 1 

and J and part 40 for its antidrug and alcohol misuse 

program. 

MRH at every time foPA^ard from inception, did have its own program 

compliant with part 121 appendences 1 and J and part 40 through NADE for its 

antidrug and alcohol misuse program for which the pilot respondent -who was 

not In any other program, was primarily on. Complainant admits that the above 

regulations are not cleariy evident in the signed operation specifications, but 

because they are publicly available and published somewhere in a Federal 

Registry to be found only through a random search and find mission, that the 

respondent should be held responsible to those regulations. The signed 

operation specification A449- had a control number of January 22, 2004, 

thereby respondent agreed to conditions directly related to that point in time, 

before the definition of "employer" was since changed. 

In administrative law "In the interpretatfon of the 

language of regulations, where doubf exists as fo the 

intent of the meaning of the fanguage written and 

enacted by a governing body, the language shall be 

Inferpreted in favor of the operator and against any 

implied extension of the restriction". 

It is averred that all individuals performing safety sensitive functions on 

MRH aircraft at all times have been subject to a random drug and alcohol 

testing program and have never had a history of a positive testing result in the 

-18-
12/20/2010 8:00PM FAX 1210019/0031 

last 10 known years. 

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 cleariy set forth, written and described in the compliance statement, the 

operational specifications and the FAR/AIM. Once MRH was made aware of 

the regulations that hod changed (that the respondent, the FAA operational 

and maintenance Inspectors, the FAA drug/alcohol inspector and the 

Allentown FSDO were not notified or informed), the two part-time A/P 

mechanics were enjoined to the existing drug and alcohol program that MRH 

already had in place for Its pilot since 2002, ever though they were closed for 

business and not doing any part 135 operations. 

hias MRH not been operating since 2007, has not used 

its certificate and has closed its financial accounts 

make the violation moot at this point? 

MRH has not been able to carry on part 135 operations since June 2007, 

on account of the single pilot operator has either been unavailable to pass or take 

his Part 135 proficiency check or the inspector was unavailable to perform the 

check. MRH has since ceased operating under the name and under the 

certificate number thereby rendering the complaint moot. All financial account 

were closed. Complainants incredibly allege that even though MRH ceased 

operating under name and certificate number, respondent could have obtained 

19 
12/20/2010 8:00PM FAX 10020/0031 

another pilot to continue operations. The complainants perhaps wittingly or 

unwittingly failed to disclose that respondents tasks, responsibilities and liabilities, 

just as this violation poses a financial liability, extended past his pilot functions, as a 

single pilot operation but included operations control, maintenance scheduler 

and assistance and every aspect of the operation, thereby complainants again 

attempt to impair the dignity of the court. 

By way of further answer, respondent decided in good judgment for the 

best interests and safety of the public, considering his own human factors and in 

accordance to regulation, to withdraw all part 135 operations due to the 

respondents tragic 5 year protracted divorce (2006 to present Hearing docket of 9 

pages already submitted), alienation of his children, relocation, financial and 

emotional devastation and other human factors such as his cardiology practice 

and hospital workloads beyond his capabilities. The position token by 

complainants represents "beating on injured man who is already down", even 

though no harm or risk has been done and in good judgment and in good faith 

temporarily relinquished his operations for the public safety. 

This unconscionable violation also represents an attack on a small 

business owner. What really drives the US economy? Small business owners with 

fewer than 500 employees drives the US economy by providing jobs for over half 

of the nations privet workforce. The latest figures from the Small Business 

Association show that small business with fewer than 20 employees increased by 

853,074 during 2005-2008. Small business drives the American economy as 

20-
12/20/2010 8:00PM FAX 10021/0031 

stated by Dr. Chad Montray, chief economist for the office of advocacy in a 

press release. Small businesses are job creators during this hard crunch on our 

economy, we can not afford to loose these small businesses and the numbers 

prove it. The respondent is a small business owner. With today's economy we 

cannot afford to drive anyone out of business, just as the FAA should not drive 

people out of the aviation business. MRH in addition has been affected by the 

economic downturn and has been operating at a loss for many years. 

Should the case be dismissed because of repeated 

breaches of meeting filing deadlines? 

At least 8 difference documents have been filed by respondent, faxed 

and sent by first class mail accompanied by a certificate of sen/ice to 

complainants, that complainants failed to respond to within the specified 

deadline periods in breach of §13.18 (d) and 13.220(d). Ms Dominik of the FAA 

enforcement division of the chief counsel called respondent directly admitting 

that the complainants did not file responses within the 10 day deadline period, 

were in breach of this regulation and thereby requested a continuance. The 

exhibit shows call log of respondent's telephone showing Ms Dominiks number 

202-267-7560. The respondent refused a continuance and requested the case 

be dismissed on these grounds. The Office of Chief Counsel employs many 

attorneys, handles thousands of violations yeariy and therefore alternatives ore 

readily available to cover or substitute for vacation, illness or other reasons. This 

case does not have exclusive authority of only Ms Ponto, as there have been 

-21 -
12/20/2010 8:00PM FAX 10022/0031 

other Intervening attorneys that have reviewed or been involved in the case. 

Including Peter Lynch, Esq., (letter October 21, 2010), Charies Raley, Esq 

(October 1, 2010 telephone hearing), 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. 

Hove the complainants filed replies to every and all of 

the numerated paragraphs listed in his motions. In 

breach of Rule § 206.2, thereby side stepping many 

elements of arguments In this case? 

When the complainants finally did file late answers past deadlines, they 

bore insufficient specificity to the respondents succinct numbered pleadings, 

their answers were procedurally defective to the standard practices of directly 

answering enumerated paragraphs breaching Rule § 206.2 and thereby 

complainant avoided and failed to address items, thus accepting stated items 

of respondent as confirmed statements of material fact. 

An example of this is, is failure to respond to how the FAAs own 

Drug/Alcohol abatement officer Vincent Roots during his "in camera" audit of 

MRH in April of 2004, failed to find a violation of MRH and failed to inform MRH or 

was informed himself of the FAA changed definition of the word "employer" 

that occurred in February 2004 affecting the unlisted or cleariy evident 

appendices I and J. 

Complainants failed to reply to the disclosed fact that MRHs regular 

-22 -
12/20/2010 8:00PM FAX Igl0023/0031 

Operations and maintenance inspectors, Frank Alotta and Gerry Henninger and 

the Allentown FSDO, which is across the street from where the aircraft has been 

hangared and inspected for 10 years, were also not aware of the regulation 

change, thereby holding MRH to a higher standard than their own FAA officers. 

Is this violation past the statue of limitations and thereby 

time barred? 

Respondent makes note of the complainant confirmation and admission 

that the last alleged violation of Mr Baker occurred on July 24, 2008 and alleges 

the notice of proposed Civil Penalty was served on July 23,2010, stating that is was 

1 day before the 2 year statue of limitation. Respondent's office is closed on 

Fridays, no mail is received on that day, therefore, the claimed date of service is 

incorrect. The complaint was served and received on July 27,2010,3 days past 

the statute of limitations. 

Has MRH operated under due diligence and in good 

faith with the known knowledge base and direction by 

the FAA inspectors and Allentown FSDO? 

When MRH was doing Part 135 flights, it did so in good faith and made 

rapid effort to become compliant with the new guidelines and regulations once 

those regulations were make known to respondent. 

Safety In aviation is a team effort, among individuals with varied knowledge 

and skill sets. How that Integration occurs determines the effective spread of 

•23 -
12/20/2010 8:00PM FAX 120024/0031 

information and the success in safe operations. Part of the FAA's responsibility is to 

notify, Inform and teach when needed. Regulations need to be easily accessible, 

cleariy described, must be effectively applied and complied with. If changes 

occur there must be a forthright, prompt method of notification to alert the 

interested parties. 

VII. CONCLUSION 

The violations are time barred. The proposed violation and a fine of $4400 (forty 

four hundred dollars) are not warranted, trivial, moot, frivolous against a 

company that does not exist, has no financial accounts, therefore all claims 

must be immediately DISMISSED. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. ^ C^ ^ 

Date \y24-
12/20/2010 8:00PM FAX 00025/0031 

July 23,2009 

MScR Helicopters 

2045 Westgate Dt 

Suite 205 

Bethlehem, Pa 18017 

Latonya Williams 

FAA 

T'he Inspector of Annuals Mechanic was not on the M & R Helicopters Drug Corsortium 

program since the change in policy of February 2004, because it was not made known to the 

Director of Operations. This mechanic had been working on M&R Helicopters Aircraft since 

2003, Tlie mechanic has always been on a drug program through other organizations. 

The second A&P mechanic, an experienced Bell Helicopter trained mechanic, only performed 

replacement of TT straps every two years on the aircraft. He also was not on the drug program 

since 2004 for the same above reasons. This mechanic is also a Chief Medivac pilot for Flight 

Methods Inc and was on their drug program. 

Please note that FAA maintenance inspector, Gerry Henninger, who performs Bi-Annual records 

inspections never notified M&Rs Director of Operations of the drug consortium policy changes. 

There ha.s only been 3 part 135's flights since 2004 when the change in policy occurred. 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC, CFl-H 

fMrt \ 
12/20/2010 8:00PM FAX gl0026/0031 

•^g^ ^ 

Offl« of Aviation Medicine 600 independence Ave., S,W. 

U.S. Deportment Washington. D.C 20691 

of Transportation 

Fttdercil Avidtioh 

AdmlnlstroHon 

APR 2 2004 

CertlfiGd-Return Receipt 

File Number: 2004EA910073 

Dr, Michael Sellg, CEO 

M and R Helicopters LLC 

2045 Westgale Drive, Suite 101 

Bethlehem, PA ia017 

Dear Dr. Selig 

On March 3.2004, you were Informed that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was 

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

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

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

IViarch 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. Wi and R Helicopters ULC's specimen collection procedures do not meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 40. Specifically: 

M and R Helicopters LLC's collector (Denese MHler/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 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, 

2. Wl and R Helicopters LLC's breath alcohol testing proceduirGs do not meet the 

requirements of 49 CPR Part 40. Specifically: 

M and R Helicopters LLC's Breath Alcohol Technician (Denese Miller/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 Checl<;list from Clinical Laboratories, Inc. documenting 

training for Denese Miller. 

6^^rt ; X 
12/20/2010 8:00PM FAX 110027/0031 

e 

U.S. Deparlment of^ce of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., SW. 

of Transportation Washington, DC 20591 

Federal Avlallon 

Administration 

FEDERAL EXPRESS , _, 'fci ilA 

July 23,2010 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M&KHelicopters, LLC IX. JUL 2 7 20)0 

2045 Westgate Dr. 

Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

RE: Case No: 2009SO950434 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY 

Based upon a report of investigation, it appears that: 

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 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(a) 

required that M&R Helicopters test each employee who performs a safety-sensitive 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 or preventive maintenance duties, directly or by contract for M & R Helicopters, is 

perfonning a safety-sensitive function and must be subject to drug testing under an antidrug 

program implemented in accordance with that appendix. 

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

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

performing a safety-sensitive function and must be subject to alcohol testing under an alcohol 

misuse prevention program (AMPP) implemented in accordance with that appendix. 

cMci !) 
12/20/2010 8:01PM FAX il0028/0031 

O 

us Department 2895 SW 145th Avenue, Suite 148 

ofTrc.r.,porto«on MIramar, PL 33027 Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Scr^ d^-^ 

CUV ' r .7.J-X. 2«^-7-^,o(. 

Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested 

September 23, 2010 

File Number: 2010SO950353 

Dr, Michael B. Sellg 

President 

M And R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Drive 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

Dear Dr. Selig: 

On July 21 and 23, 2009, we Inspected M And R Helicopters, LLC's drug and 

alcohol testing programs to determine compliance with 49 CFR part 40 and 14 CFR 

part 120, (formerly 14 CFR part 121, appendices I and J). This letter addresses 

which Issue described in the letter of investigation that is still under Investigation 

and which issues we will close with administrative action. 

The following issue included in our August 14, 2009. letter of Investigation (File 

Number: 2009SO950434) will be addressed in separate correspondence: 

• IVI and R Helicopters, LLC did not detennine that Edward Baker, a contractor, 

was covered under a FAA-mandated drug and alcohol testing program prior 

to using his services. 

We have reviewed all available information concerning the following issues from our 

August 14, 2009, letter of investigation (File Number; 2009SO950434): 

1. M and R Helicopters, LLC did not determine that Eugene Mcintosh, a contractor, 

was covered under a FAA-mandated drug and alcohol testing program prior to 

using his services. 

2. M and R Helicopters, LLC did not conduct pre-employment drug tests and 

receive verified negative test results prior to hiring Eugene Mcintosh and Edward 

Baker to perform safety-sensitive functions. 

/ We have decided not to take legal enforcement action for these apparent violations. 

( Instead, we are Issuing this warning notice. j 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/heaclquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/drug_alcohoi/ 
12/20/201 0 8:01PM FAX 1210029/0031 

We continue to expect compliance with all applicable drug and alcohol regulations. 

Sincerely, 

tya B. Williams, Inspector 

Eastern Compliance and Enforcement Center 

Drug Abatement Division 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

U.S. Dopartmant of Transportation F^daral Aviation Administration 
12/20/2010 

11/80/2-010 6 

8:01PM FAX 

:14PM FAX 

1^0030/0031 

@0002 

Start Tiino 

ll/,r» 12:53 

11/21 05:44 

. .x/24 06:05 

11/27 07:26 

11/27 10:04 

11/29 10:03 

11/30 06:13 

PM 

PM 

PM 

AAI 

AM 

PM 

m 

Address 

610 770 9894 

6104340520 

12022675106 

1202267610B 

12022675106 

12022076108 

12022675106 

No. 

5ooa 

0071 

0072 

0073 

0074 

007C 

0076 

Mode 

Auto RI 

Send 

Send 

S»nd 

Send 

Send 

Send 

HCM 

ROM 

HCM 

ECM 

ECM 

ECM 

ECM 

Page 

4 

4 

2 

2 

19 

43 

7 

Rosull. 

OK 00' 4 1 

OK 00'42 

OK 00-27 

OK 00'25 

OK 02'44 

OK 06'30 

OK 00"56 

CvkM I. 
12/20/2010 8:01PM FAX ' 10031/0031 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

P»d«ral Aviation Admlnlstrotion 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, Latonya Wiliiams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Docket: 2010-1211 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS LATE RESPONSE TO RESPONDENTS MOTION TO DISMISS 

AND MOTION TO STRIKE ALLEGATION 

RESPONDENT'S SUPPORTING BRIEF TO ANSWERS TO COMPLAINANTS RESPONSE TO MRH'S MOTIONS 

TO DISMISS AND STRIKE ALLEGATION 

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

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1746, 

Service by first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W10CXD 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Att: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

\ / ^ FAX 202 493 5142 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

US Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M~20, Room El2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. 

JWashington, DC 20590 

(/FAX 202 366 7536 

Laura Ponto, Esq. 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

^ FAX 202 267 5106 

Michael B. Seiig, MD, FACC.