Michael Selig, MD, FACC . 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

jc^^RTMENTOF 

••gPORIATION 

-T nor PERATIOMS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto 

Complainant 

M & R Helicopters, ILC, 

Respondent 

CP/^SO 00 If 

FAA Case 

200950950434 

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 

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

principle tor MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) whom avers and files the following 

Preliminary Objections pursucanl to § 13.208(d) to the complaint submitted by Ihe 

Federal Aviation Administration associate Laura Ponto, Esq. hereby asserting 

that the allegcjiions made in the complaint are erred, not proper, reasonable or 

acceptable, ond tfiereby the complaint should be stricken and dismissed. 

Count I. 

Constitutes conclusions of law to which no answer is required 

pursuant 1o the federal rules of court. 

Page 1 of 6 

6LO/LOO0 S W Q <r VVJ SfrLSSSfr^OS XVd LQ-i i 0L02/80/SL 
Count II 

1. Agreed in part. MRH has not been able to carry on part 135 

operations since August 2007, on account of the single pilol operator has either 

been unavailable to pass or take his flight exam for personal reasons [protracled 

divorce, liability issues) or the inspector was unavailable to perform a flight exam 

(medical leave). MRH has since ceased operating under the name and under 

the certificate number, ownership of helicopter has changed, financials have 

been closed, thereby rendering the complaint moot. 

2. Denied The operation specifications were signed off in 2004 (exhibit 

]). At the time of sign off, the regulation now finding MRH in violation had been 

changed without notification. By way of further answer 14 C.F.R. pari 121, 

Appendix I and J and 49 C.F.R, part 40 are nol disclosed, clearly delineated or 

spelled out in the compliance statement, operational specificafions, not readily 

available in the FAR/AI M and thereby one can assume are less important than 

other regulations that are clearly disclosed in the signed operational 

specifications. These regulations were thereby hidden and concealed. 

3. Denied. Regulations 135.251 and 135.255 as written in the 

complianco statement and confirmed by the respondent docs not inherently 

state that MRH must directly test each employee v^ho performs a safety sensitive 

function (exhibit 2) but empirically states that any contraclor be covered by on 

FAA approved drug ond alcohol testing program. These individuals referred to, 

Page 2 of 6 

GLO/SOO® SW Q *• VVd StLSCGtSOS XVd LO-Ll 0L0S/80/SL 
did comply with mandatory drug and alcohol testing regulations by way of their 

full time erriployers. 

In administrative law "/n the inferprefof'ion of the language of 

regulofions. where doubt exists as to the intent of the meaning of the language 

written and enacted by a governing body, the language shall be interpreted in 

favor of the operator an d against any implied extension of the restriction". 

4. Denied. All individuals performing safely sensitive funclions on MRH 

aircraft were at all times subject to random drug and alcohol testing programs 

and have never had a history of a positive testing result over the last 10 known 

year period. 

5. Denied. All individuals performing safety sensitive functions on MRH 

aircraft at all times have been subject to alcohol testing under the alcohol 

misuse program and have never tested positive. 

6. Denied. At all times were individuals performing safety sensitive 

function were subject to DOT required random drug testing or have ever tested 

positive. 

7. Denied. At all times were individuals performing safety sensitive 

functions were subject to DOT required random alcohol testing. 

8. Agreed. 

9. Denied. Mr Baker at all times was in a random pool for DOT required 

drug and alcohol testing at the time of performing referenced functions in 

paragropti 8 and clearly within the known regulations clearly pursuant to the 

Page 3 of 6 

6L0/e00i a SWO -i- VVJ S1?L9eGtS0S XVd LO-L l 0L03/80/2 L 
operational specifications, the compliance statement and the standard 

FAR/AIM. 

By way of further answer, a regulation change occurred in February 

2004, no notification procedure was in place to inform the operator of this 

change, contrary to the routine protocol followed by all other operation 

specification chapiers which included a regular notification procedure, written 

operational specification revisions, replaced pages and subsequent re-signoff 

and confirmation of the new pages that the operator is aware and agrees. It is 

therefore not reasonable, proper or acceptable to hold MRH r'esponsible for 

changes he was not formally or otherwise notified of. 

In addition, MRH was inspected by Vincent Roofs of the FAA drug 

abatement prograrTi in April of 2004 (Exhibit 3) and found compliant with the 

regulations, even though a regulation change had occurred in February of 

2004. Therefore the FAA's own drug abatement officer was also not intorr^ied of 

the regulation change just as MRH was not. II is therefore not proper, 

reasonable or acceptable to hold the operator to a standard higher than their 

own drug inspection officers who themselves did not know or inforrTi MRH of the 

regulatiori changes. 

Furthermore, MRH maintenance inspector, Gerry Henninger, MRH 

operation iri.spector, Frank Alotta, the Allentown FSDO manager, Mr Wadsworth, 

also were not aware of the regulation change. The Allentown FSDO is located 

across the street from the MRH aircraft and it's officer's in.spccted frequently 

Page 4 of 6 
during their daily occurrence at the Lehigh Valley International Airport (ABE) 

where the aircraft has been hongared for over 10 years, never to find MRH in 

violation of FAA regulations. 

10. Denied. Mr Baker was in a random pool for DOT required dr'ug and 

alcohol testing at all times under Air Methods Corporation including the time ot 

performing referenced functions on MRH aircraft (Exhibit 4). 

11. Denied. There Is all reason to believe and in good faith, that under 

the stated circumstances that MRH operated in due diligence ond in 

accordonce to the knowledge sets of the Allentown FSDO, its inspectors and the 

regulations that were clearly set forth, written and described in the compliance 

statement, the operational specifications and the FAR/AIM. 

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

expect an operator to randomly find and hunt for regulations, not clearly 

written, spelled out in the compliance statement, operation specificotions and 

FAR/AIM, to review hundreds ot pages of text at a remote site, to focus, find, 

comprehend and determine it a r'ondom regulation chonge had occurred. It is 

nol clearly stated where the exact source location of these unidentified and 

hidden (fine print) regulations are to be located or on what time interval to 

complete this tedious tVit or miss scorch procedure that is prone to 

misinterpretation and error, therefore, it Is impossible to ever be thoroughly 

compliant at any point in time, if a regulation change or update randomly 

occurs. It is also impossible to do this time consuming, random search on a 

Page 5 of 6 

eio/sooia swo <• VVd stissetso s xvd LO-L I OLOS/SO/S L 
regular basis and is more prone to mistake and entrapment than a forthright 

notification procedure, that is consistent and already in place for procedures 

pertaining to the other chapters in the operational specifications. 

Once MRH was made aware of the regulations that hod changed 

without the respondent, the FAA operational and maintenance inspectors and 

the Allentown FSDO being alerted, the two part-time A/P mechanics were 

enjoined to the existing drug and alcohol program. 

Count III. 

1. Denied. 

2. Denied. 

WHEREFORE, The resporideni prays to this Honorable Court that the proposed 

violation, consisting of a judgment against MRH, (which currently does not exist, 

with no financial assets) and a fine of $5400 (fifty four hundred dollars] be 

immediately STRICKEN and DISMISSED. 

Respectfully SubrriiHed, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC c i V I i ^ 

Dat e •'••---1'^ ' w ^ '•' 

Page 6 of 6 

6L0/900ia SW a <• VVd StLSEGt'SOS XVd LO-L l 0LOS/8O/2L 
ul.S. Deparrmenl 

of Transportation 

Fedoral Aviaiion 

Adminifili.ition 

'•"--•'"^~ - ———- -

Operations Specilicaiioni; 

/V44y. Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prcvtntioii Pro^fam KQ Control: \^ (U/22/04 ""') 

HQ Kevision; ' 00(1 '^ 

;c-iLjrn;aic holder who opciaies uuderTillc 14 Cnric of Fedfiral Rcgulaijons (CFR) Pan 115 

ics that it will comply with the reqtiirement.? ori4 CHI? Psir 121 Appendices i and ,1 and 

\-\\ Fiin 40 for Us A.inidaig and >^lcohol Mi?use Prevention IVogi-ani. 

"Hie cc-iLjrn;aic holder who 

ceiiili 

49 Cl 

I). AnndrLi^ und Ali;(iltol Misuse Prevention Program record! ai't jnainuiined iiiid avaiiublc foi' irispccrioi: 

by the I'.AA's Drug .A.bitemc:m Cornpliance and Hnforucmtiic Injpccrors at ihc locanon listed m Tabic 1 

below: 

Table ] 

Address: 

AitdiesN! 

City: 

.Stnte: 

/jf) code: 

LocaiioQ or Antidrug and Alcolml Misuse 

Pievention ProRram Records: 

2045 Westgatc brjvc 

Bcthlchcui 

PA 

18017 

Telephone Number: 

(610)769-7000 

o. Lirniiatiorlfi and Piuvjiiion.';. 

(1; Aruidru" and Alcohol Misuse Prevention IVogrimi uispuc-tions and eiiforcL'mL'm activity will In: 

tor^clLicttd c^clusik-tly by tlic Drug Abatement Division. Ail qucstiyns regarding '-h'^ progviin 

should be directed to the Drug Abatement Division. 

(2) The ccrti(ic..<te holder muM. iniplemcrLt its Antidrug aad Alcohol Misuse Prevention Proi?i'aiui fully 

in aci.;(.>rdiince wi(h 14 CFR Part 121, Appcndice.!! I and J, and 49 CFR Parr dO. 

(.?j The ccr(ificate lioidcv is tctponsiblc for ensuring ihsil lis contractors wlvu perform ssfsty-scnsitivc 

work for the rertificati; bolder ure subjcetto Antidnig aiid Alcohol Misiise Picvunlion Pfiijrsnis. 

('4) Ihe ccnificaLc holder is responsible for updating this operations specincHiion when any eluingcs 

occur in the t'ollo^^'ing•. 

(a) I .ocatiwn or phonr, number where the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse PrcvciiTion Reeord.s wre 

kept (as iivicd in Table 1 above). 

(b) If ihe certificate holder's numbcr-of sarcty-sciisiiivu ciriploycei; goes to 50 .'snd abovi;, or faiN. 

bclo^v .SO safeiy-seii.<;itivc eniplyyccs, . „ 

(.5) The certilicMC holder with 50 or more employees performing a .safely-scnsilivi; finictiyn on 

Janunry 1 of the ca!ondnr year must submil nn annual repoiTto ilic Drug Abulcmcnt Divisiun yfihc 

FAA. The certificate holder with fever than SO employees performinR a .safety-seniiiivc tijncticut 

on Jrimiaiy I of any calcndji- year must .submit an winual repori upon )et|uesl of the Admijiislrsitor, 

as spcciticil in the rtiyulation.s. 

The certilierUf holder has frwc r than .50 safcty-scnjuivc employees 

6L0/i00l l 

PnmDrtic; m'snm^ A449-1 

M AND R HELICOITHR.S LLC 

Cftrtificate No..- MK:U07.0is: 

V.-i, 

FO^ OFFICII [JSEONIY 

Public avoliGbliiiY to be deierniliied under 5 USC S52 

g^Q ^ i^Vd StLSeGfSOS XVd iO:iL 0LOS/8O/2L 
U.S. DeparLment 

u( Transportation 

federal Aviation Operations Specification.? 

Administralion 

1. Issued by tin.- Federal Aviation AdministrRtion. 

2 These Oprr:<tion:i Specificftiioiis are approved by diieeiion of the AdmiuiiLrutor. 

ALU'I'TA, FRANK Principal Operations Inspector iiAO.'i 

3 Dal.ti Approval IS effective: 2/4/04 Atriendmerr Knmbor- 0 

4 J hercijy iiecept and receive the Operations .Specifications in this paragiapb. 

iSelig. Mn:hac] U. Agcni for Service Date: 2/4/04 

Prim OMtc-8/15/2005 A44i>-2 Ccrlifieaic No.; MR3A020X 

M AND R HI'.I,jCOPTERS LLC 

FOROFF!CiAiUSEOHLY 

Public availability to b e deterrnined undef 5 USC 552 

eLO/800 0 S.a . VVd ZH9ZSnO Z XVd 80: a 0103/80/3 1 
NOTE: Whenever a compliarsce statement directs M & R Heiicopters; LLC. to 

maiS or deliver documents to the Allentown, PA, FSDO, the following addsess wiS! 

be used: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Flight Standards District Office 

961 Marcon Boulevard, Suite 111 

Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103 

REGUi^TION COMPLIANCE r'AA USI^ 

SUBPART A -- GENERAL 

'iSS.I The regulations governing air carrier operations that are 

contained in FAR part 135, as amended, appiy to M & R 

Helicopters, LLC, and will be complied with as shown beiow. 

\ ;a}(l)M & R Helicopters, LLC. will conduct on-demand 

operations as a holder of an Air Carrier Certificate 

under Pan 119 of this chapter. 

(a)(2) M & R Helicopters, LLC. will insure that all 

contractors, employees, and persons performing 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, and/or 

alterations of its aircraft will comply with the 

applicaole rules of this part. 

(a)(3)M & R Helicopters, LLC. will not transport mail 

(a)(4)Not appiicabie. M & R Helicopters, LLC, will not 

appiy for provisional approval of an advanced 

Qualification Program curriculum, curriculum 

segment, or portion of a curriculum segment under 

SFAR No. 58. 

(3)(5) Any nonstop sightseeing flights conducted by 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. for compensation or hire 

within 25 statute miles of an airport will be conducted 

under the provisions of this Part; however, except for 

operations conducted under SFAR 50-2, these operations, 

when conducted for compensation or hire, will comply 

only with 1 35.249, 135.Z5T, 135.253, 1 35.255, and 

135.353. 

GLO/BOOia SW G *• VVd StlSe6*S0S XVd QO-Ll 0L0S/80/SI 
T 35.251 M & R Helicopters, LLC. will be a member of an FAAapprovedConsortium, or will have its own approved 

program, with membership initiated at the time ATCO 

certificate is issued. Consortium membership will insure 

compliance with Appendices I of FAR Part 121. 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. will insure that any contractor 

who performs maintenance on its aircraft is covered by 

an FAA-Approved drug-testing program. 

135..253(a) M & R Helicopters, LLC. will comply with the provisions of 

FAR Part 1 35.253, in regard to employees who perform 

a function listed in Appendix J to Part 121 of this chapter, 

as set forth below. 

135.253(b) M & R Helicopters, LLC. will allow no covered employee, as 

described in Appendix I of FAR Part 121, to report for 

duty or to remain on duty, and no covered employee shall 

report for duty for any covered position, if that person 

has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater. 

135.253(c) M & R Helicopters, LLC. will not permit the use of, and no 

covered employee of M & R Helicopters, LLC, will use, 

alcohol while performing any safety-sensitive function. 

135.2S3(d) M & R Helicopters, LLC. will not allow, nor will any covered 

employee perform, any flight crewmember duties within 8 

hours of using alcohol. M & R Helicopters, LLC. does not have 

any covered employees other than flight crewmembers. 

135.253(e) No M & R Helicopters, LLC. covered employee will use alcohol 

for 8 hours following an accident involving an aircraft for 

which that employee has performed a safety-sensitive 

function, unless and until he has been given a post-accident 

alcohol test, or unless M & R Helicopters, LLC. has determined 

that the employee's performance could not have contributed 

to the accident. 

38 

610/0100 SWO + VVd StLSSetSOS XVd 80:iL 0102/80/31 
135.253(f) No covered employee of M & R Helicopters, LLC, shall refuse 

to submit to a post-accident, random, reasonable suspicion, 

or follow-up alcohol test required by Appendix J of Part 121 

of this chapter; and M & R Helicopters, LLC. will not permit 

any employee who refuses such a test to perform any safetysensitive hjnction. 

135.255(a) M & R Helicopters, LLC. will furnish to the FAA a certification 

& (b) statement, and will implement a formal Alcohol Misuse 

Prevention Program, in accordance with Appendix J of 

Part 121, no later than the start of operations under 

FAR 135. All M & R Helicopters, LLC. employees who 

perform a safety-sensitive function will be subject to 

testing for alcohol misuse in accordance with Appendix J 

of Part 121. 

39 

GLO/UQi a SWO <• VVd 31?LSeGtf303 XVd 80:i L 0103/80/3 1 
^ 

U-S, Dsoartment 

of Transportatiori 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Office of Aviation Medicine 500 Independence Ave., -S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

APR 2004 

Certjfied-Return Receipt 

File Number: 2004EA910073 

Dr. Michael Selig, CEO 

M and R Helicopters LLC 

2045 >A/estgate Drive, Suite 101 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

Dear Dr. Selig 

On IVlarch 3, ?004. you were informed that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was 

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

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

February 26, ?004 and the documentation submitted in your response dated 

March 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 beiow: 

1 M cind R Helicopters LLC's specimen collection procedures do not meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 40. Specifically; 

M and F Helicopters LLC's collector (Denese Miller/CHS 02) failed to complete Step 1 

item E, Test to Be Performed, on the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control f-orm. 

Corrective Action. Althe 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 Checl<list from Clinical Laboratories, Inc. documenting training for Denese 

Miller, 

2- M and R Melicopters LLC's breath alcohol testing procedures do not meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR 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. 

Correctiva Action: At the Inspection outbriefing, M and R Helicopters LLC agreed to 

immediately ensure that Uie 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 Checi<llst from Clinical Laboratories. Inc. documenting 

training for Denese Miller. 

610/310 0 SWO VVd 31?L9S6t303 XVd 80:iL 0L03/80/31 
3. IVI and R Helicopters LLC faiied to maintain records as required by 49 CFR Part 40. 

Specifically: 

M and R Helicopters LLC's laboratory failed transmit the employer specific aggregate 

statistical summary for 2003 to the employer on a semi-annual basis, 

Corrgclive Action: At the inspection outbriefing, M and R Helicopters LLC agreed to 

immediately ensure the lab will send statistical summaries for 2003. In the response dated 

March 18,2004, M and R Helicopters LLC submitted a copies of aggregate statistical 

summaries for 2003 from LabCorp. 

This is to confirm ttiat you have satisfactorily corrected the above issues. We have given 

consideration to all available facts and concluded that these issues do not warrant legal 

enforcement action. In lieu of such action, we are issuing this letter, which will be made a 

matter of record. We expect that in the future M and R Helicopters LLC's Antidrug and Alcohol 

Misuse Prevention Programs will be in compliance with applicable regulations. 

Sincerely, 

Vincent O. Roots 

Inspector, Compliance and Enforcement 

gLO/eiOia SWO - VVd 3^586*303 XVd GO:U 0L03/80/3L 
Employee Name: 

• • ? I . tc:A "bife/ 

Date: q...... -0O(^ ^ 

49 CFR 40.25 rer^uires DOT regulated companies to check the drug and alcohol testing record of new 

en"ployees who were previously employed by a DOT regulated employer. 

1, Have you been employee! by any DOT regulated company within the last 24 months? (checl< one) 

V/]' YES n NO 

If YES, please provide the name, address and phone number of the 'adlity. (If more than one, list namet, 

acdresses, phone en the baci< of this form.) 

/i-l^ M'ilJtC'c i (-.'••:"• •£ 

2, Have you ever tested positive or refused to test on any pre-employment drug or alcohol test 

administered by an employer to which you applied for, but die not obtain, safety-sensitive work covered 

by DOT drug and alcohol testing rules during the past two years? (check one) 

j i YES NO 

GLO/tLOi a SWO <- VVd St'LSeGt'SOS XVd 60:i L 0L03/80/3 t 
Before the U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Tn the mailer oJ' ) 

) Docket No. TBA 

M & R HELICOPTER ) FAA Case No. 200950950434 

) 

) 

... .) 

COMPLAINT 

Pursuant to Ride 208 of the Rules of Practice in FAA Civil PcraJt^^ Actions. 

14 C.I'.R. § 13.208, the Complmnant, Federal Aviaiioii Adjninistjation (FAA), hereby 

laics ius Complaint in ihe above-captioncd maLLer. 

I. 

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

a Final Notice oTProposed Civil Penalty on October 21. 2010, that the FAA proposed to 

assess a civil pt-nally in llie amount of $5,400 for violations of Federal Aviation 

Regulations. By Ictttr dated October 27, 2010, Respondent Teque.sted a hearing in the 

above-caplioncd marter. 

J.1, 

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

mentioned in this document was, the holder of Air Caixier Certificate No. xMR3A020K, 

issued under 14 CF.K. part 119 and authorized to conduct operations under 14 C-F, K, 

pait 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

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

specifications required it lo comply with 14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendice.'^ I and J and 

1 

6L0/SL0l?l SWO <• VVd 31?LSS6t'303 XVd 60:i L 0103/80/3 1 
49 C.F.R. Part 40 for its a-.itidrug and alcohol misuse prevention prograiTi. 

3. At all times mentioned in ihi-s document, 14 C.F.R. ij§ 135.251(a) and 

135.255(a) required that M & R Helicopters test each employee who perfoj-ms 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 1, § ITI, an employee who performs 

aircraft maintenance or preventive maintenance duties, directly or by contract lor M & K 

Helicopters, is performing a safety-sensitive fiinction and must be subject to drug testing 

'onder an antidrug program implemented in accordance with that appendix. 

5. Under 14 CF.R. pari 121, Appendix J, §TLA, an employee who performs 

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

Helicopter.^, is performing a safety-sensitive function and must be subject to alcohol 

teijting under an alcohol misuse prevention program (AMP?) implemented in accordance 

with that appcndi.x. 

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

§V.B, required eaoh i^afety-sensitive employee to be subjected to DOT-required random 

drug testing in accordance with that Appendix. 

7. At all times mentioned in this document, 14 CF.K. part 121, Appendix ,T, 

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

alcohol misuse testing in accurdaiice with that Appendix. 

8. On or about November 2, 2007, November 18, 2007, and July 24, 2008, 

Mr. bdward Baker lil pcrfonned safety-sensitive functions for M & R Helicopters. 

6L0/9L0l? l SWO -i- VVd St^LSSBtSOS XVd 60:i L 0103/80/3 1 
9. .Mr. ftaker was not included in M & R Helicopter's random pool lor DOTrequired drug and alcohol te.sting at the time of the performance reference in paragrapli 8, 

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

antidrug progi'am and AMPP at the time he performed safety-sensitive function.<> for M & 

R Helieopters, as set forth in paragraph 8. 

l\. 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 ea.ch employee who 

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

accordance with Section V.A.I and Section V.H.5 of that appendi.x. 

(b) 14 CF.R. § 1 .^ 5.255(b), in tliat it failed to test each employee who 

perfonTied a s^xfely-sensitive function listed in 14 CF.R. part 121, Appendix .T in 

accorda.'ice with the provi.'jions of Section IlLC.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. oJ~ the violations alleged. The maximum civil penalty per violation is 

$11,000. 

2. Under the facts and cireumsiances of this ca.se, a civil penalty of $5,400 is 

appropriate. 

SLO/iLOi a SWO *• VVd 3111986*303 XVd 60.2. 1 0L03/80/3 1 
WHERKFOKF:, Complainant respectfully requests that the Administrative Law 

Judge enter an order that Respondent be as.sessed a civil penally in the amount of $5,400. 

Respectfiilly submitted, 

Peter L Lynch 

A,5sistant Cliief Counsel 

Date; November 17,2010 

ira Ponto 

Attorney 

Enforcement Divi.sion, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Admini.strati on 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wasliington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202) 267-9863 

Facsimile; (202)267-5106 

GLO/SLO l SWO + VVd 3ftSeG1?303 XVd 60:2.L 0t03/80/3 l 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Louro Ponio 

CorTipiainant 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

'Respondent 

FAA Case 2009SO950434 

1 HEREBY CERTIfY thai I have this doy served the foregoing entrie(s): 

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 

upon all parties of record in Ihis proceeding, in accordance with the requiremcnfi of Ruift 29 

pur.suontto 28 tJ. S. C. § \7A6,. 

.Service bv first-class; mail, oostaoe orepoid. addressed a.s follows: 

Federal Aviation Adminislroiion 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright .Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 205yl 

Att: I lecjring Docket Clerk, ACC-430 

Laura Ponto, Esq 

Fnforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chiel Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wo.shinpton, DC 20i91 

TAX 202267 5106 

By: 

^X 

Michoel B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, Pc. 181 CM 

610 360 3953 

Dote: _r ' '-'•V\ . 

6L0/6L0l?l SHO 'r VVd StLSeetSOS XVd 60:iL 0103/80/31