o 

RECEIVED 

JAN - ^ 201^ 

HEARING DOCKET 

U.S. Department Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20591 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED and FACSIMILE 

December 30, 2010 ;-

• ^ J- -

1 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder "" ^-J&^S : 

Chief Administrative Law Judge -Q <3.>J2: 

U.S. Department of Transportation i^^ ^CtCD 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. _;_ ;>^2:~n 

Washington, DC 20590 »M ' ^ 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 

Re: DOT Docket No. CP10SO0011,FAA case no. 2009SO950434 ICf^^qO " 19-^^ 

Dear Judge Yoder: 

On November 17, 2010, Complainant filed the complaint in this matter and requested that 

the hearing be held in Philadelphia, PA. Dr. Selig, owner of M & R Helicopters then 

sent a letter regarding the hearing location to Complainant's counsel, with a copy to the 

docket, on November 24, 2010. In that letter, Dr. Selig stated "please be advised that MR 

Helicopters is requesting a venue change to Allentown, PA DOT Court." Although a 

hearing has not been scheduled, this letter is to address that correspondence and the 

location requested for this hearing. 

In his November 24, 2010, letter. Dr. Selig refers to an October 1, 2010 telephonic 

informal conference vfixh Complainant when he claims that undersigned counsel "stated 

and confirmed that Allentown DOT court was available" for the hearing. Undersigned 

counsel made no such representation, and simply advised Dr. Selig that the hearing 

docket would determine the availability of hearing facilities and that the hearing would 

be held at a location convenient to the parties. 

Complainant's counsel is located in Washington, DC, and the majority of Complainant's 

witnesses are in Miami, FL. However, Complainant requested that the hearing be held in 

Philadelphia, PA, for the convenience of Respondent. Philadelphia is a reasonable 

driving distance, approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, by car from Allentown. 

Furthermore, Philadelphia is a more accessible and less expensive location than 

Allentown for Complainant to travel to for the hearing. 

Accordingly, for conservation of government funds and the convenience of the parties. 

Complainant respectfiilly requests that the hearing be held in Philadelphia, PA, or 

Washington, DC, if Philadelphia is not feasible. 
Sincerely, 

ura Ponto 

Attorney, Enforcement Division 

Telephone: (202) 267-9863 

Facsimile: (202) 267-5106 

Cc: Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 
Before the U.S. Department of Transportation RECEIVED 

I Federal Aviation Administration JAbi ~ k "lu 

HEARING D )CKET 

In the matter of 

M & R HELICOPTER 

Docket No. CPlOSOOOll 

FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

Chief Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO M&R HELICOPTER'S 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT TO DISMISS. FAILURE TO PROPERLY 

RESPOND OR MEET FILING DEADLINES 

Complainant files this response to Respondent M& R Helicopters' (Respondent) 

Motion for Judgment to Dismiss, Failure to Properly Respond or Meet Filing Deadlines. 

In this motion, Respondent raises the same arguments previously made in Respondent's 

Motion for Judgment to Dismiss, Failure to Respond or Meet Filing Deadlines and 

Respondent's Motion for Judgment to Dismiss 4. Complainant responded to those 

motions on December 20, 2010 and respectfially requests that the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge refer to Complainant's Response to M & R Helicopters' Motion for Judgment 

to Dismiss, Failure to Respond or Meet Filing Deadlines and Respondent's Motion for 

Judgment to Dismiss 4, in addition to considering Complainant's response below. 

Respondent's chief argument in the present motion is that the agency failed to file 

a timely response to two of Respondent's previous motions: Respondent's Motion to 

Quash, Strike, or Dismiss Complaint ("Motion to Dismiss") and Respondent's Motion to 

Strike Allegation ("Motion to Strike"). Respondent states that the Motion to Dismiss was 

served on November 29, 2010, the Motion to Strike was served on November 30, 2010, 

and that Complainant did not file a reply until December 13, 2010. The certificates of 
service for these documents, however, reflect that Respondent served the motions on 

November 30, 2010. (Attachment 1 and 2). Complainant filed a timely response to both 

motions on December 10, 2010. 

Respondent also argues that the case should be dismissed because he did not 

agree to a continuance in this case. However, Complainant did not request a continuance 

firom the Administrative Law Judge's Office in this case. 

Finally, Respondent argues that "complainants have not pleated [sic] facts with 

sufficient specificity and in accordance to standard practices of Rules 1029 and 

1028(a)(3)" and cites to Pennsylvania State Case law, which is not applicable to these 

proceedings. Complainant has complied with the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty 

Actions, which require that "a complaint shall set forth the facts alleged, any regulation 

allegedly violated by the respondent, and the proposed civil penalty in sufficient detail to 

provide notice of any factual or legal allegation and proposed civil penalty". 14 C.F.R. § 

13.208(c). The complaint in this case complies with the rules of procedure by setting 

forth the specific facts alleged, the FAA regulations violated, and the proposed civil 

penalty of $4,400. Complainant has provided sufficient notice of the case. Respondent 

has failed to establish any basis for the dismissal of the complaint in this matter. 

WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge deny Respondent's Motion for Judgment to Dismiss. Failure to Properlv 

Respond or Meet Filing Deadlines. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

By: ^>%clcu<^ Ofe65> 
Laura Ponto 

Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

Date: December 30, 2010 
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 Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion for 

Judgment to Dismiss, Failure to Properly Respond or Meet Filing Deadlines In the Matter 

ofM & R Helicopters, Docket No. CPlOSOOOl 10, 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, I 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 Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I 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 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

•y^SUQ^'^'i^iOav^ 

Dated: December 30, 2010 
010 10:03PM FAX 210001/0043 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Admlnlsfratlon 

Laura Ponto, Lotonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

FAA Case 2009SO950434 

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

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO QUASH. STRIKE OR DISMISS COMPLAINT 

RESPONDENT'S BRIEF SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO QUASH. STRIKE OR DISMISS 

COMPLAINT 

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-closs mall, oostaae prepatd. addressed os follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washingloa D.C. 20591 

Att: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Laura Ponto, Esq 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX 202 267 5106 

j#^ By: 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

28l6 0refieldRoad 

Allentown, Pa. 18104 

610 3603953 

Date: w- <7p'i0 

'vi 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Lotonya Williams 

Complainants 

M &R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

FAA Case 2009SO950434 

V. 

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

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE ALLEGATIONMR BAKER WAS NOT ON A DRUG/ALCOHOL PROGRAM 

upon all 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, postaoe prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Att: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Laura Ponto, Esq 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 • . 

L^FAX 202 267 5106 , ( AiV l 

\^ ^ ^ 

By: 

^^V ^ V y 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC 

2816 0refield Road 

Allentown, Pa. 18104 

610 360 3953 

Date: iwioj^ 
i^ECEIVED 

Before the U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration JAN ~'l ?3l^ 

HEARING r )CKET 

In the matter of 

M & R HELICOPTER 

Docket No. CPlOSOOOll 

FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

Chief Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO M«&R HELICOPTER'S 

MOTION TO HAVE DEPOSITION OF LATONYA WILLIAMS IN THE 

ALLENTOWN. PA LOCATION 

Complainant files this response to Respondent M& R Helicopters' (Respondent) 

Motion to Have Deposition of Latonya Williams in the Allentown, PA Location. 

Respondent previously filed a Motion for Deposition of Latonya Williams on 

December 1, 2010. Complainant responded on December 15, indicating that it would 

make Ms. Williams available for a deposition at FAA Headquarters in Washington, DC, 

where the FAA has a Drug Abatement Division Office. 

On December 21, Respondent filed a Motion to Have Deposition of Latonya 

Williams in the Allentown. PA Location, rejecting that offer and arguing that the 

deposition should take place at the U.S. District Courthouse in Allentown, PA. Although 

Respondent has requested this deposition and insisted that it be held at the U.S. 

Courthouse in Allentown, PA, Respondent does not indicate that he has made any 

arrangements with the U.S. District Court to conduct a deposition in its facilities. 

In Respondent's motions, it claims that Ms. Williams "comes to Allentown 

regularly; therefore it would not be an inconvenience for her to come once again to the 

Allentown area." That is inaccurate. Ms. Williams is an FAA inspector who lives and 
works in Miami, FL. She does not regularly travel to the Allentown area. She has no 

fiiture travel scheduled to Allentown and it would be a tremendous inconvenience and 

expense for Ms. Williams to travel to there from Miami, FL for the sole purpose of 

Respondent's request to depose her. 

Respondent rejected Complainant's reasonable offer to make Ms. Williams 

available on several possible dates for the deposition in Washington, DC. Therefore, 

while Complainant will continue to make Ms. Williams available for deposition, it will 

do so in Miami, FL, where Ms. Williams is located. If Respondent chooses to proceed 

with a deposition of Ms. Williams, he should either: (1) notice the deposition in Miami, 

Florida, where Ms. Williams is located; (2) bear the costs for Ms. Williams to travel to 

Allentown, Pennsylvania; or (3) conduct the deposition by telephone or other remote 

means.' 

' As a general proposition, the party requesting a deposition bears the transcription costs and travel costs if 

the witness is being asked to travel more than 100 miles to attend the deposition. See Tilton v. Capital 

Cities/ABC, 115 F.3d 1471 (10* Cir. 1997). 
WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfiilly requests that the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge deny Respondent's Motion to Have Deposition of Latonya Williams in the 

Allentown, PA Location and order that any deposition of Ms. Williams be held in Miami, 

FL. 

Respectfially submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

a,ly(Jj2S 

Ponto 

Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

Date: December 29, 2010 
Certificate of Service 

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

certified retvim-receipt, a copy of Complainant's Response to Motion to Have Deposition 

of Latonya Williams in the Allentown, PA Location In the Matter ofM & R Helicopters, 

Docket No. CPlOSOOOl 10, FAA Case no. 2009SO950434, addressed to: 

Dr. Michael B. SeHg 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

In addition, I 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 Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I 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 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

fJLOVH^O?^'^ 

Dated: December 29, 2010