02/17/2011 6;49AM FAX 

Igl0012/0017 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H 

2816 Orefleld Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

^APTMENT OF 

^T OPERATIONS 

:3 -^2 P 2^20 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

INADEQUATE DISCLOSURE AND INTERPRETATION OF REGULATIONS 

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

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

following Motion for More Definite Statement in regard to the inadequate listing 

and Interpretation of the regulations complainants cited for the alleged civil 

penalty. 

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

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

and complainants have continued with prosecutorial overreaching and 
02/17/2011 6:49AM FAX 00013/0017 

unrelenting tiling, disregard and abuse of governmental spending. 

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

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

the onset. 

3. It Is respondent's averment that the regulation cited for the alleged 

violation was not dearly stated or written, word for word in the compliance 

statement or operation specifications page A449-land 2 or even present in the 

FAR/AIM, the most common reference manual. 

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

appeared In the Enforcement Investigation Report unaltered or redacted by 

respondent, provided by Ms Ponto in the exhibits exact form, demonstrated that 

the document was signed off and agreed to with forthright disclosure, in 

January of 2004^ before the definition of employers was changed and other 

changes in the regulations had occurred. 

5. Since the regulation changes occurred after the signed disclosure; 

the respondent did not know, was not Informed by any method or formally 

agreed to the changes and thereby should be held harmless. 

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

program on page A449'-1and 2 which were not disclosed forthright in specificity 

of regulations referenced. 

7. It is respondent's averment that the location on a remote site of the 

regulations cited for violation was not exactly noted or referenced, therefore in 
010014/0017 

02/17/2011 6;49AM FAX 

affect concealed, hidden and ambiguous from the compliance statement and 

operations specifications. 

8. One can only premise from the data readily and reasonably 

available that if a mechanic is on a monitoring program by whatever means 

that would indicate compliance. 

9. The full Drug/Alcohol abatement program regulations were not 

clearly written out, not similar and following suit to that which exists for its 

operations and maintenance regulations, it is respondent's averment that it was 

impossible to know of the changed regulations, unless first locating the 

regulations and second sifting through hundreds of pages of regulations while 

randomly comparing regulations side by side to differences, an impractical and 

time consuming process fraught with error, encouraging violation and 

entrapment rather than compliance in the spirit of assuring safety. 

10- The is no sign off procedure as there is for the operations and 

maintenance compliance protocols, clearly delineating in spelled out written 

format and then confirming knowledge of all the regulations by signature 

authorization and even return of the old, replaced voided operation 

specifications. 

11. In fact, respondent was audited by FAA drug/Alcohol abatement 

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

also was never informed of the then current regulations that included an in -

house regulation change and therefore unable to inform MRH of the regulation 
02/17/2011 6:49AM FAX 00015/0017 

change. 

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

maintenance inspectors were not knowledgeable of the regulations, the 

location of these regulations and thereby also not informed of their own agency 

regulation change, even though frequently inspected all of MRH operations, 

finding MRH always complying with regulations, never informed them of this 

change. 

13. Additionally, several factors clouding the clarity and full disclosure of 

these regulations, since regulations they were not clearly contained, listed, 

spelled out or in a forthright manner evident within the signed off compliance 

statement and operational specifications, thereby not forthright, hidden, 

concealed and enabling violation and entrapment, rather than assistance, 

training, openly fostering communication and effective compliance In the spirit 

of safety. 

14. There were several matters concerning clearness and interpretation of 

the language and meaning contained within the signed off compliance 

statement and operational specifications, thereby encouraging violation, rather 

than effective compliance in the spirit of safety and contrary to standard 

practices in Administration law. 

in Administrative Law "In the Interpretation of ttie 

language of regulations, 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 Party and against any implied 

extension of a restriction". 
02/17/2011 6:49AM FAX 00016/0017 

15. The matter of having a mechanic on any monitoring program when 

the operation specifications commenced is an example of one of many unclear 

statements. 

16. It is respondent's averment that in order to properly violate an 

operator, the regulations must first be directly located and contained within the 

compliance statement and operation specifications. 

17. It is respondent's averment and request hereto, that the allege 

violation process is flawed and unjust. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will have 

complainants directly address and answer this statement with specificity and 

not ignore, evade and circumvent this fundamental precise is this case as they 

have repeatedly done in the past. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

Date 

-5 
02/17/2011 6:50AM FAX 

00017/0017 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviaffon AdrnlnistrofTon 

Cynthia Dominik, Laura Ponto, 

Latonya Williams, Peter Lynch 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

V. 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yodei 

Docket: 2010-1211 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

TRAVEL LOG FOR LATONYA WILLIAMS 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

INADEQUATE DISCLOSURE AND INTERPRETATION OF REGULATIONS 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

INADEQUATE METHODS OF COMPLIANCE AND NOTIFICATION 

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, postage Prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Aft: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

FAX 202 493 5142 

Laura Ponto, Esq. 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX 202 267 5106 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

US Department of Transportation 

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

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX 202 366 7536 

\vv-. 

a... By: 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 0refieldRoad 

Allentown, Pa, 18104 

610 360 3953 c^ D^^^V 

Date: -^"^ ^ ' 

1^-^ 

.2L